Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, (2000) 257 N.R. 1 (HL)

Case DateMay 18, 2000
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2000), 257 N.R. 1 (HL)

Three Rivers v. Bk. of England (2000), 257 N.R. 1 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Three Rivers District Council and Others (original appellants and cross respondents) v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (original respondents and cross-appellants)

Indexed As: Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett

May 18, 2000.

Summary:

The Bank of Credit and Commerce Inter­national S.A. (BCCI), a Luxembourg cor­poration, which carried on business in the United Kingdom, collapsed. The cause of the collapse was fraud on a vast scale per­petrated at a senior level of BCCI. The plaintiffs, more than 6,000 depositors, com­menced an action against the Bank of England, which had supervisory authority over banks operating in the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs pleaded the tort of misfeasance in public office by senior Bank of England officials and pleaded breaches of Com­munity law, in particular breaches of the Directive of 1977 which introduced a statutorily based licensing system. Prelimi­nary issues arose as to whether the causes of action based on the tort of misfeasance in public office and on breaches of Community law were sustainable in law. The principal legal issues for de­cision were the precise ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office and whether the Directive of 1977 conferred rights of compensation on depositors. A motions judge struck out both causes of action as unsustainable. See [1996] 3 All E.R. 558. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal, Auld, L.J., dissent­ing, in a decision reported [2000] 2 W.L.R. 15, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs ap­pealed again.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal regarding the Community law issue, holding that the Directive of 1977 was not intended to confer rights on individual depositors. The court stated the requirements of the tort of misfeasance in public office and adjourned this part of the appeal for further argument.

Banks and Banking - Topic 7607

Foreign banks - Regulation and supervi­sion - The Bank of Credit and Commerce Inter­national S.A. (BCCI), a Luxembourg corporation, which carried on business in the United Kingdom, collapsed because of fraud on a vast scale perpetrated at a sen­ior level - The plaintiffs, more than 6,000 depositors, sued the Bank of England, which had supervisory authority over banks operating in the United Kingdom - The plaintiffs alleged breaches of Com­munity law, in particular breaches of the Directive of 1977 which introduced a statutorily based licensing system - The House of Lords affirmed that the action based on Community law was unsus­tainable because the Directive was not intended to confer rights on individual depositors.

Torts - Topic 9162

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Misfeasance in or abuse of public office - The House of Lords, per Lord Steyn, discussed the tort of misfeasance in public office, including the early history and set out and discussed the elements of the tort - See paragraphs 9 to 30, 34, 91 to 111, 113 to 131 and 146 to 157.

Torts - Topic 9162

Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Misfeasance in or abuse of public office - The Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. (BCCI), a Luxembourg corporation, which carried on business in the United Kingdom, collapsed because of fraud on a vast scale perpe­trated at a senior level - The plaintiffs, more than 6,000 depositors, sued the Bank of England, which had supervisory author­i­ty over banks operating in the United Kingdom - The plaintiffs pleaded the tort of misfeasance in public office - The lower courts ruled that the cause of action based on the tort of misfeasance was un­sus­tainable and should be struck out - The House of Lords stated the requirements of the tort of misfeasance in public office and adjourned the appeal on this issue for further argument.

Cases Noticed:

Turner v. Sterling (1672), 2 Vent. 25, refd to. [para. 9].

Ashby v. White (1703), 1 Smith L.C. 13th Ed. 253, refd to. [para. 9].

Davis v. Bromley Corp., [1908] 1 K.B. 170, refd to. [para. 9].

Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council, [1982] A.C. 158 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 9, 116].

Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1986] Q.B. 716 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 93, 151].

Yeu et al. v. Hong Kong (Attorney Gen­eral), [1988] A.C. 175; 82 N.R. 321 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Davis v. Radcliffe, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 821 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Calveley v. Chief Constable of Mersey­side; Worrall v. Chief Constable of Mer­sey­side; Park v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, [1989] A.C. 1228 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 119].

P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council, [1995] 2 A.C. 633; 185 N.R. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 120].

Lonrho Ltd. v. Shell Petroleum Co. (No. 2), [1982] A.C. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 116].

Beaudesert Shire Council v. Smith (1966), 120 C.L.R. 145, refd to. [para. 10].

Northern Territory v. Mengel (1995), 69 A.J.L.R. 527 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 10, 17, 100, 115, 153].

Bradford Corp. v. Pickles, [1895] A.C. 587, refd to. [para. 10].

Allen v. Flood, [1898] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 10].

Jones v. Swansea City Council, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 54 (C.A.), revd. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1453; 132 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 150].

R. v. Bowden, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 98, refd to. [para. 10].

Racz v. Home Office, [1994] 2 A.C. 45 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 13, 119].

Drewe v. Coulton (1787), 1 East 563; 102 E.R. 217, refd to. [para. 15].

Tozer v. Child (1857), 7 E. & B. 377; 119 E.R. 1286, refd to. [paras. 15, 92].

Cullen v. Morris (1819), 2 Stark 577; 171 E.R. 741, refd to. [paras. 15, 108].

Ackerley v. Parkinson (1815), 3 M. & S. 411; 105 E.R. 665, refd to. [para. 15].

Harman v. Tappenden (1801), 1 East 555; 102 E.R. 214, refd to. [paras. 15, 91].

Taylor v. Nesfield (1854), 3 E. & B. 724; 118 E.R. 1312, refd to. [para. 15].

Garrett v. Attorney General, [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 332, refd to. [paras. 17, 100, 125, 152].

Rawlinson v. Rice, [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 651, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Cunningham, [1957] 2 Q.B. 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Caldwell, [1982] A.C. 341, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Lawrence, [1982] A.C. 510 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 18].

Lam v. Brennan, [1997] 3 P.L.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Chief Constable of North Wales Police; Ex parte A.B., [1999] Q.B. 396 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Barnard v. Restormel Borough Council, [1998] 3 P.L.R. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 108].

W. v. Essex County Council, [1999] Fam. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Brasserie du Pecheur S.A. v. Federal Re­public of Germany; R. v. Secretary of State for Transport; Ex parte Factortame (No. 4) (Nos. C-46/93, C-48/93), [1996] Q.B. 404, refd to. [paras. 29, 40].

N.V. Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse administratie der belastingen (No. 26/62), [1963] E.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Becker v. Finanzamt Műnster-Innenstadt (No. 8/81), [1982] E.C.R. 53, refd to. [para. 41].

Francovich v. Italian Republic (Nos. C-6/90, C-9/90), [1995] I.C.R. 722, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for Transport); Ex parte Factortame Ltd. et al., [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1062; [1999] N.R. Uned. 123 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].

Dillenkoffer v. Federal Republic of Ger­many (Nos. C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94, C-190/94), [1997] Q.B. 259, refd to. [para. 45].

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (No. C-127/95), [1998] E.C.R. 1-1531 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Société Civile Immobilière Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie (No. C-222/95), [1997] E.C.R. 1-3899 (Eur. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 52, 133].

Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Communities (No. 45/86), [1987] E.C.R. 1493, refd to. [para. 53].

Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (No. C-233/94), [1997] E.C.R. I-2405 (Eur. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

Criminal Proceedings against Romanellii, Re (Case No. C-366/97), [1999] All E.R. (E.C.) 473, refd to. [para. 59].

Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Österreichische Kreditversicherungs A.G. (No. C-364/96), [1998] E.C.R. I-2949, refd to. [para. 66].

Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (No. C-131/88), [1991] E.C.R. I-825, refd to. [para. 67].

Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (No. C-298/95), [1996] E.C.R. I-6747, refd to. [para. 67].

Wagner Miret v. Fondo de Garantia Salarial (No. C-334/92), [1993] E.C.R. I-6911, refd to. [paras. 74, 140].

Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amster­dam 2 (No. C-28/95), [1998] Q.B. 182, refd to. [para. 74].

Gemeente Hillegom v. Hillenius (No. 110/94), [1985] 10 E.C.R. 3947 (Eur. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

Henly v. Lyme Corp. (1828), 5 Bing 91, refd to. [paras. 119, 155].

R. v. Dytham, [1979] Q.B. 722 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 120, 155].

Ferguson v. Kinnoull (Earl) (1842), 9 Cl. & Fin. 251, refd to. [para. 155].

Statutes Noticed:

Banking Act (U.K.) (1987), sect. 1(4) [para. 37].

First Council Banking Co-ordination Di­rective (1977) (77/780/E.E.C.), generally [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arrowsmith, Civil Liability and Public Authorities (1992), pp. 226 to 234 [para. 9].

Craig and de Búrca, E.U. Law (2nd Ed. 1998), p. 120 [para. 53].

Prechal, Sacha, Directives in European Community Law (1995), p. 138 [para. 134].

Smith, John Cyril, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law (9th Ed. 1999), pp. 60 to 69 [para. 18].

Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (15th Ed. 1998), p. 55 [para. 10].

Counsel:

David Vaughan, Q.C., and Richard Sheldon, Q.C., for the appellants;

Paul Lasok, Q.C., for the respondents.

Agents:

Lord Neill of Bladen, Q.C., for the appel­lants;

Nicholas Stadlen, Q.C., for the respon­dents.

This case was heard on January 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2000, before Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett of the House of Lords. The decision of the House of Lords was given on May 18, 2000, when the fol­lowing speeches were delivered:

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 1 to 33;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see para­graphs 34 to 90;

Lord Hutton - see paragraphs 91 to 111;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 112 to 131;

Lord Millett - see paragraphs 132 to 158.

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Alberta (Minister of Infrastructure) v. Nilsson,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 29, 2002
    ...refd to. [para. 70]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England (No. 3), [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1120 ; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 ; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 85]. Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 488 ; 159 B.C.A.C. 14 ; 259 W.A.C.......
  • St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1074 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • April 19, 2004
    ...W.A.C. 14; 198 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 182]. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C.......
  • Genesis Land Development Corp. et al. v. Alberta et al., 2009 ABQB 221
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 9, 2009
    ...(2005), 334 N.R. 198; 206 O.A.C. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80]. Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 14; 246 W.A.C. 14; 20......
  • Ceapro Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., 2008 SKQB 76
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • February 19, 2008
    ...v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 146]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 3 All E.R. 1; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), consd. [para. 146]. Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al. (2000), 142 O.A.C. 149; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 147]. Decock ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1074 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • April 19, 2004
    ...W.A.C. 14; 198 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 182]. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C.......
  • Alberta (Minister of Infrastructure) v. Nilsson,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 29, 2002
    ...refd to. [para. 70]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England (No. 3), [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1120 ; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 ; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 85]. Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 488 ; 159 B.C.A.C. 14 ; 259 W.A.C.......
  • Genesis Land Development Corp. et al. v. Alberta et al., 2009 ABQB 221
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 9, 2009
    ...(2005), 334 N.R. 198; 206 O.A.C. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80]. Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 14; 246 W.A.C. 14; 20......
  • Ceapro Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., 2008 SKQB 76
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • February 19, 2008
    ...v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 146]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 3 All E.R. 1; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), consd. [para. 146]. Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al. (2000), 142 O.A.C. 149; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 147]. Decock ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT