[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

It was also the Applicants’ case that the RWA figure published as part of the Q3 Update was not known to be materially incorrect, because the Bank reasonably believed that the increased RWA required as a result of the CLIP loans would be offset by one or more of the following mitigants:

The Authority’s position was that at the time of the Q3 Update, the Applicants did not expect that any of these mitigants would be permitted by the PRA, and that in any event, they would not have affected the RWAs for the CLIP loans.

We agree with the Authority: even if the Applicants were correct about one or more of the mitigants, they would only have offset the extra capital required as a result of the increased RWAs for the CLIP loans. They would not have changed the RWAs themselves, so the RWA figures published at the time of the Q3 Update would still have been materially wrong. Nevertheless, as the mitigants formed a major part of the Applicants’ case, we have considered each of them below.