|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms order striking out portions of defence and counterclaim, on the grounds that: (a) the impugned paragraphs contained allegations of fraud that were pleaded in a manner that contravened the rules of court; (b) allegations that the loan was connected with misconduct by the parent of the lending bank in connection with the 'rigging' of the LIBOR rate was not based on admissible evidence, but relied on an unsupported assertion of an 'expert' report that had not been exhibited to the relevant affidavit; and (c) it was only the relevant paragraphs that were being struck out under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, and the balance of the issues could proceed to trial.
Whelan J (nem diss): Orders striking out of portions of pleadings - frivolous, vexatious, bound to fail - provision of overdraft and loan facility - default - appointment of receivers - counterclaim for damages - involvement of parent bank in "rigging" of LIBOR interest rate - whether bank entitled to enforce certain loans in light of alleged rigging - evidence pertaining to conduct of bank - whether loans affected by alleged LIBOR manipulation - affidavit of 'financial risk services expert' - allegation that loans were 'hedged' on a portfolio basis - whether bank had knowingly misled borrowers - whether contentions of expert were merely a theory - whether 'financial risk services expert' was an expert retained to give evidence in the litigation - new arguments - pleading of fraud - speculative nature of evidence grounding allegations.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
