Muammar Gaddafi ruled Libya from 1969 to 2011 ap Goldman Sachs won their dispute in the UK's high court against Libya's $60 billion (£42 billion) sovereign wealth fund.

The Libyan Investment Authority claimed it lost more than $1 billion (£750 million) on nine trades executed by Goldman Sachs in 2008 on banks such as Citigroup and UniCredit, as well as the French company EDF.

"There was no protected relationship of trust and confidence between Goldman Sachs and the LIA," Mrs Justice Rose said in a London court ruling on Friday.

"We are pleased to win this case, with a comprehensive judgment in our favour," Goldman Sachs said in a statement, while the LIA responded to the judgement by saying: "The Libyan Investment Authority is naturally disappointed with the judgment handed down today by Mrs Justice Rose. Time will be needed fully to digest the judgment and all options are being considered at this time."

Herbert Smith, the law firm representing Goldman Sachs, declined to immediately comment.

The LIA was set up in 2006 to invest Libya's oil wealth internationally, after international relations with Muammar Gaddafi's regime began to normalise.

The organisation claims Goldman Sachs took advantage of the low level of financial literacy of LIA staff and suggested large and risky trades that led to heavy losses for it and large margins for the bank. The judge rejected this claim.

"I find that the key people within the LIA discussed the trades," the judge said. "It was not Goldman Sachs's fault."

Lawyers for Goldman Sachs, responding to the claims in court in July, said that the LIA was suffering from "buyers' remorse," and that the bank wasn't responsible for the losses, which happened amid the 2008 credit crunch and financial crisis.

In closing arguments, Goldman Sachs pointed to the fact that the LIA was offered the opportunity to restructure or unwind the trades before taking heavy losses, but chose not too.

Goldman Sachs became close to the LIA after Youssef Kabbaj, a former salesman for the bank, was embedded within the organisation in 2007. Kabbaj befriended Haitem Zarti, the younger brother of a senior LIA official.

Zarti was taken on holiday to Morocco and to a conference in Dubai, where Kabbaj allegedly paid for business-class flights and five-star hotel rooms and, according to the LIA lawyers, procured prostitutes for them both. Zarti was also granted a coveted internship at the bank.

"I fully accept that the extent of the entertainment offered by Mr Kabbaj to Haitem was inappropriate and in flagrant breach of Goldman Sachs’ policy on entertaining clients," Mrs Justice Rose said.

"However, it does not seem to me relevant to the matters I have to decide. There is no evidence that Mr Zarti knew the nature and extent of the entertainment provided to his brother or that it influenced his behaviour – indeed it is not clear to me that he would have taken a positive view of what went on. He may well have been less, rather than more inclined, to give Goldman Sachs more business if he had found out about what went on," she said in her ruling.