Three Rivers DC v Governor of the Bank of England
Three Rivers DC v Governor of the Bank of England  UKHL 16 is a UK banking law and EU law case, concerning government liability for the protection of depositors, and the preliminary ruling procedure in the European Union.
|Three Rivers DC v Governor of the Bank of England|
|Court||House of Lords|
|Citation(s)|| 3 CMLR 205|
Depositors in the UK branch of BCCI sought damages from the Bank of England for failing in its supervisory duties. The Bank had granted BCCI authorisation in a way that breached the First Banking Directive 77/780. The government argued that the Directive was not intended to give individual depositors rights.
Clarke J dismissed the action, and the Court of Appeal by a majority (Hirst and Robert Walker LJJ, Auld LJ dissenting) dismissed the appeal.
The House of Lords held that the Directive was only a first step toward mutual recognition of authorisations of member states to credit institutions, and individual depositor protection was not an objective of the Directive. There was no need to refer to the ECJ. The delays and costs of making a reference were great, given the very small likelihood that they would have made a wrong interpretation.
Lord Hope said the Directive did not define a depositor and so did not define the class of persons who might have rights. Article 3(1) obliged member states to require credit institutions to have authority to operate, but BCCI had commenced before the Directive. Articles 6 and 7 did not impose any duty of supervision on national authorities.
This case essentially establishes that a Hansard can be used as an external aid to statutory interpretation.