[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

Mr Jaffey submitted that when issuing the Q3 Update it was reasonable for the Bank to rely on the advice given by Linklaters in the meeting, even though that Update was not mentioned by either Mr Arden or Mr Lane for the following reasons:

In relation to the first three of those points, Mr Stanley submitted that the Bank had failed properly to brief Mr Lane, because Mr Arden did not mention the Update in the meeting; no copy of the Update (or any other papers) was provided in advance, at the meeting, or subsequently; and Mr Arden gave partial and incorrect information to Mr Lane.

In relation to the final point, Mr Stanley reiterated that the issue was not whether the Bank had a duty to disclose the RWA issue at the time of the Q3 Update, but whether it was a breach of LR 1.3.3R to disclose figures which it knew to be incorrect. The two issues were separate and distinct. The Bank had not sought or received advice on that second issue. The Applicants’ approach failed to distinguish between:

We have no hesitation in agreeing with Mr Stanley for the reasons he gave. We add that even if the Bank had intended to obtain Linklaters’ advice about the Q3 Update, it would have failed to instruct Linklaters properly or with reasonable care and could not, as a result, reasonably have relied upon their advice.