|
''Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd v Welwyn Hatfield DC'' () 1 All ER 1 was a decision of the English High Court relating to the enforceability of financial derivative products under English law. The case essentially operated as a test case for certain key issues in relation to a series of litigation cases relating to swaps entered into between banks and local authorities in the United Kingdom which had been declared to be legally void. ==Background== In June 1987 Welwyn Hatfield District Council had entered into a 10-year interest rate swap agreement with Morgan Grenfell based upon a notional principal amount of £25 million. The swap made the usual provisions for netting, with only the balance due being payable by either party on the payment dates. Welwyn Hatfield DC had also entered into a back-to-back swap with Islington London Borough Council, and Islington LBC was joined to the proceedings as an interested third party. Accordingly, in commercial terms Hatfield Welwyn DC was just acting as an intermediary (for which it effectively received the sum of £210,000) and the net payments would flow through to either Morgan Grenfell or Islington LBC depending upon the movement of interest rates. In 1989 pursuant to the decision at first instance in ''Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC'' () 2 QB 697〔Ultimately appealed to the House of Lords, reported at () 2 AC 1〕 it was held that interest rate swaps were not permitted under the Local Government Act 1972, and therefore were ''ultra vires'' with respect to the powers of local authorities in the United Kingdom, and were therefore all void. Thereafter all payments under the swap contract stopped. Morgan Grenfell then commenced proceedings against the District Council to claim back the payments which they had previously made under the void swap contract. The court ordered than three issues be determined as preliminary issues. # Firstly, whether the swaps should be characterised as wagering contracts within section 18 of the Gaming Act 1845 or section 1 of the Gaming Act 1892.〔Now replaced by the Gambling Act 2005.〕 # Secondly, whether section 63〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Financial Services Act 1986, section 63 (as originally enacted) )〕 and paragraph 12 of schedule 1 to the Financial Services Act 1986〔Now superseded by section 412 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.〕 affected that conclusion. # Thirdly, whether any right to restitution arose if the contracts were held to be a wagering contract. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd v Welwyn Hatfield DC」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|