R (United Company Rusal plc) v The London Metal Exchange

The LME appealed against the High Court’s decision ([2014] EWHC 890 (Admin)) that its consultation exercise concerning a proposed rule change to solve a problem with long delays in obtaining metals stored at warehouses was unfair and therefore unlawful. 

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge had been wrong to hold that the LME had to consult on potential alternatives in addition to the proposal the LME wished to implement. The Court held that the adequacy of the consultation document concerning the reasons for the rejection of the rent ban had to be assessed by reference to the context which included information which was well-known to consultees and that there was no duty to disclose legally privileged advice.  The Court agreed with the Judge that the LME’s decision to hold the consultation was not vitiated by financial interest.
 
Monica Carss-Frisk QC, James Segan and Naina Patel, instructed by MacFarlanes, acted for Rusal.
 
Michael Beloff QC and Simon Pritchard, instructed by Latham and Watkins, acted for the LME.