[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

The Authority’s position was that it was clear from Burton v Bevan, Scandex and Avacade, that ignorance of the law was not a defence: as Neville J said in Burton v Bevan “the only question is, did [the person] know the facts which made the act complained of a contravention of the statute?”.

However, the Authority also accepted that if an issuer was relying on legal advice about an announcement, and that advice:

“reasonably led the issuer to believe that the announcement is accurate and complete, [t]he receipt of such advice might arguably demonstrate that the issuer had taken reasonable advice to ensure accuracy and completeness.”

Mr Stanley said, however, that this was not the Applicants’ position, because Linklaters were not asked to advise on whether the Bank could include RWA figures which it knew to be materially wrong in the Q3 Update. Instead, Mr Lane was asked to advise about whether the MAR required the Bank to make a proactive market announcement about the CLIP loan error.