[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

The PRA had agreed that the COREP returns could continue to be made on the previous basis until the final position was clear, and it was reasonable for the Bank to follow the same approach when making the Q3 Update.

The Bank was prevented by its obligations of confidentiality to the PRA from disclosing the RWA issue to the market at the time of the Q3 Update.

The Bank had relied on the advice given by Mr Lane of Linklaters.

The Listing Rules allow a bank to disclose a figure which was known to be wrong when the correct number was uncertain and being investigated.

LR 1.3.3R was only contravened where information is materially misleading, false or deceptive or if material information is omitted, and where (as here) the correct number was unknown, there could be no material breach.

The Bank did not know that there was a material error until (a) Deloitte had concluded its investigation; and (b) it was clear whether any RWA increase caused by the incorrect classification of the CLIP loans could be mitigated by other factors (“the Knowledge Issue”).

It would have been misleading if the Bank had disclosed only the issue with the CLIP loans but not that with the PBTL loans (and the Authority accepted that disclosure of the latter was not required).

The alternatives suggested by the Authority, of providing an estimate, a figure with a qualification, or no figure at all, were unreasonable.

The Bank had relied on the experienced Board and the Audit Committee.

The Bank had relied on the advice of Ms James.