Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
International aspects of capacity and authority: a need for reappraisal of Haugesund v Depfa?
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
The effect upon private law contractual rights of public law illegality has long been a source of confusion and controversy, particularly in the context of disputes between banks and public bodies over complex derivatives. The issue divided the Court of Appeal in Credit Suisse v Allerdale [1997] QB 306 and although the view of Hobhouse LJ in that case has been endorsed in Charles Terence Estates Ltd v Cornwall Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1439, this was only obiter. Foxton J in School Facility Management Ltd v Governors of Body of Christ the King [2020] EWHC 1118 (Comm) has now decided how far public law illegality can provide a defence of incapacity but his logic when applied to a foreign entity is more consistent with Etherton LJ’s dissent in Haugesund v Depfa [2010] EWCA Civ 579 than with the majority decision.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
