The claimants sought very substantial damages against the bank, arising from the bank’s delay in executing four transactions. The defendant said that it suspected that the proposed transactions concerned criminal property and that, in those circumstances, they were not required to comply with the payment instructions. The claimant complained at this point of the redaction of the names of staff involved in the decisions.
Held: The redaction exercise was to be re-done by the defendant in accordance with the process outlined.
Judges:
Coulson J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 1713 (QB), [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 48, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 485
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Shah and Another v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd QBD 26-Jan-2009
The claimants sought damages after delays by the bank in processing transfer requests. The bank said that the delays were made pending reports of suspected criminal activity. The bank’s delay had stigmatised the claimant causing further losses. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.441425