← All Authorities
United Kingdom undue influenceunconscionabilitynature of fiduciary relationshipquincecare duty

Libyan Investment Authority v Goldman Sachs International

[2016] EWHC 2530 (Ch)
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtHigh Court of England and Wales (Chancery Division)
Year2016
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Claims by sovereign wealth fund against bank for undue influence and unconscionable bargain in structured derivatives trades failed where no advisory or fiduciary relationship was established.

Key Principle

Derivatives mis-selling; undue influence over sovereign wealth fund; unconscionable bargain in structured trades; Goldman's advisory relationship

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Libyan Investment Authority v Goldman Sachs International and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Libyan Investment Authority v ...