The Administrative Court has dismissed judicial review proceedings and a damages claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 brought by traders Elliot Associates and Jane Street against the London Metal Exchange (LME) and its clearing house counter-party, LME Clear. It held that LME had not acted unlawfully in its decision to suspend and cancel nickel trades, emphasising the latitude afforded to specialist decision makers such as recognised investment exchanges: R (Elliott Associates, Elliott International and Jane Street Global Trading) v The London Metal Exchange and LME Clear [2023] EWHC 2969 (Admin).

This decision will be of interest to financial institutions as it is an interesting example of the interaction between private law arrangements and judicial review and highlights that the Administrative Court is willing to tailor its approach based on the commercial and contractual context. Specialist decision makers are generally given broad discretion in any event, but where a party has consensually submitted to an exercise of power this case demonstrates the difficulties in subsequently seeking to challenge a use of that power within its explicit confines.

For more information, please see our Public Law Notes blog post.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.