- In the final chapter of the Libor-Euribor saga, the Supreme Court focused on the ‘essential error’ of juries being given judicial directions as to how particular definitions should be interpreted.
The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29, represented the final, extraordinary chapter in the Libor-Euribor saga. In overturning their convictions—and opening the door for many similar convictions to be overturned—the Supreme Court focused on the ‘essential error’ (para [9]) of juries being given judicial directions as to how particular definitions should be interpreted. The judgment concluded that the relevant interpretations of Libor and Euribor should properly have been treated as matters of fact, and therefore left to the jury’s consideration.
This robust statement by the Supreme Court has been welcomed by the legal community as an important reminder of the separate provinces of judges and juries. However, while this distinction is absolutely a cornerstone of the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=7806223b_1)
