Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc

Subject Matter

BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders — Fraudster inducing claimant to make authorised push payments from her account with defendant bank to overseas accounts — Whether bank having duty to protect claimant from consequences of payments willingly made but induced by fraud

[2021] EWHC 10 (Comm); [2021] Bus LR 451; [2021] WLR(D) 60, QBD

BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders — Fraudster inducing customer to instruct bank to make authorised transfer from account — Bank under duty not to execute instruction when on inquiry that execution might result in misappropriation of customer’s funds — Whether duty only arising where instruction given by customer’s agent — Whether bank arguably in breach of duty owed to customer

[2022] EWCA Civ 318; [2022] QB 578; [2022] 2 WLR 872; [2022] Bus LR 353; [2022] WLR(D) 121, CA

BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders — Fraudster inducing customer to instruct bank to make transfer from account — Whether bank under duty not to execute customer’s instruction if on inquiry that execution could result in misappropriation of customer’s funds — Whether such duty only arising where instruction given by customer’s agent — Whether bank arguably in breach of duty owed to customer

[2023] UKSC 25; [2024] AC 346; [2023] 3 WLR 284; [2023] Bus LR 1269; [2023] 4 All ER 847; [2024] 1 All ER (Comm) 1; [2023] 2 Lloyd's Rep 125; [2023] WLR(D) 305, SC(E)

Appellate History

Commentary

RPC Perspectives
Court of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise in principle where customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud Case comment

Out-Law
Supreme Court backs ‘conventional’ understanding of banks’ Quincecare duty Case comment