London's gold delivery system faces court review on sourcing limits
A case in London questions the LBMA’s accountability for sourcing in its Good Delivery system, highlighting limits of gold bar certification.
What happened: court challenge over LBMA’s duty of care
On October 7, 2026, London’s High Court will review whether the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) has legal duties relating to the sourcing of gold in its Good Delivery system. This claim involves two Tanzanian artisanal miners allegedly killed in 2019 at the North Mara mine. Their relatives, represented by the Leigh Day law firm, say the LBMA acted negligently when it re-certified a Good Delivery gold refinery that accepted gold from North Mara while alleged human rights abuses continued at the mine.
The LBMA manages the Good Delivery List, determining which refineries’ gold bars qualify for settlement in London’s large over-the-counter market. The LBMA, established by the Bank of England 39 years ago, states it does not certify mines and denies having any legal responsibility for deaths or abuses. In defense filings, the LBMA calls the case an "existential issue" for its global reputation and how standards for sourcing are set.
Leigh Day argues that by continuing certification, the LBMA’s program masked risks, and that the Responsible Gold Certificate did not reflect actual due diligence on the ground. If the court finds for the plaintiffs, it could spark further claims against the LBMA related to gold mining worldwide.
Context: how the Good Delivery system evolved
The Good Delivery List was created in 1750 by the Bank of England as London became a global gold trading center. Its purpose was to standardize weight and purity for bars. After 2010 conflict minerals rules, the LBMA’s standards grew to require annual independent audits, supply chain due diligence, and adoption of the Responsible Gold Guidance, aiming to prevent gold linked to conflicts or human rights violations from being listed.
Refiners today must show annual proof of their supply chain controls through third-party audits. There remains debate, however, about what makes due diligence “adequate,” and where the limits of LBMA’s role lie compared to refineries and other parties.
Perspective: what the Good Delivery stamp can and cannot prove
For buyers of physical gold, the Good Delivery stamp is designed as an assurance of basic standards and responsible sourcing. The LBMA puts its weight behind frameworks and requires external audits, but it does not directly inspect or certify mining operations. This distinction is central to the Tanzanian lawsuit.
We think the stronger question is not if certification guarantees so-called "clean" gold, but what information can be independently checked and what must be taken on trust. As more scrutiny comes to gold supply chains, buyers and the industry will likely want improved clarity about sourcing and limits of audits and certification. The outcome of this case may reshape expectations about the LBMA’s responsibilities, but it will not fully settle ongoing questions about the traceability of every bar.
Source: Centuries-old London Good Delivery system for gold faces modern accountability test
This article is general information, not investment advice. Facts from other publications are their reporting, linked above.