Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Search Results for: Bills of Exchange Act 1882
Florentino Comm Giuseppe Sri v Farnesi and Another: ChD 11 Feb 2005
Company directors drew and signed company cheques, but the cheques did not bear the word ‘limited’ or permitted substitute. The cheques were not met and the claimants sued the signatories personally. Held: The section made the signatory of such a cheque personally liable. Once presented and refused, it became ‘not duly paid’. Under section 45 … Continue reading Florentino Comm Giuseppe Sri v Farnesi and Another: ChD 11 Feb 2005
In Re Amadeus Trading Ltd: ChD 1 Apr 1997
A winding up petition was inappropriate where there were a complicated series of disputes. Citations: Times 01-Apr-1997 Statutes: Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Insolvency Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.81693
Linklaters (A Firm) v HSBC Bank Plc and and Banco Popular Espanol: ComC 22 May 2003
A stolen cheque was endorsed in blank, and paid through an account opened for that purpose. It had been crossed ‘A/C PAYEE ONLY’ The cheques was paid in, and the money authorised for payment by HSBC. The banks had to apportion responsibility. The paying bank (HSBC) sought to apply Middle Temple, making the collecting bank … Continue reading Linklaters (A Firm) v HSBC Bank Plc and and Banco Popular Espanol: ComC 22 May 2003
Roger Smith and Christopher Timothy Esmond Hayward and Lloyds Bank TSB; Harvey Jones Ltd and Woolwich Plc: CA 27 Jul 2000
Where a cheque has been altered fraudulently to change the name of the payee, the piece of paper ceases to be a cheque, and an action for conversion against the paying or collecting bank will stand only as to the nominal value of the paper, and not as to the face value. The material alteration … Continue reading Roger Smith and Christopher Timothy Esmond Hayward and Lloyds Bank TSB; Harvey Jones Ltd and Woolwich Plc: CA 27 Jul 2000
Smith and another v Lloyds TSB Group plc: QBD 23 Dec 1999
A cheque was altered and presented and paid through an account operated by the defendants. The claimants asserted that the collecting bank had converted the cheque and were liable to repay its value. The cheque having been fraudulently altered, it was held that it had, under the Act, ceased to be a cheque as such, … Continue reading Smith and another v Lloyds TSB Group plc: QBD 23 Dec 1999
R E Jones Ltd v Waring and Gillow Ltd: HL 1926
In the case of a confidence man whose plan might have been frustrated by an unexpected contact between the two innocent parties; the House of Lords were divided as to whether that equivocal contact amounted to a representation. Viscount Cave LC thought that the court should find a way of preventing a party so using … Continue reading R E Jones Ltd v Waring and Gillow Ltd: HL 1926
Edwards v Walters: CA 1896
The holder of the promissory note gave a parol renunciation of all his rights. Further he delivered the promissory note back to a devisee of its maker, on whose real estate the obligations under the note were charged, and who had kept up the payments of interest. Held: This did not work to discharge the … Continue reading Edwards v Walters: CA 1896
Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien: Misc 29 Jul 2020
Citations: [2020] EW Misc 12 (CC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Road Traffic Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.655643
Davidson v Barclays Bank Ltd: 1940
The Plaintiff, a credit bookmaker successfully sued the Bank in libel. The libel proved was writing the words ‘not sufficient’ on a cheque issued by the Plaintiff when they dishonoured it. He would have had sufficient funds ad the bank followed his instructions to stop an earlier cheque. As applied to cheques, s 49(12) of … Continue reading Davidson v Barclays Bank Ltd: 1940
North and South Wales Bank v Irvine: HL 5 Mar 1908
M was induced by the fraud of W to draw a cheque in favour of K or order. K was an existing person, and when M drew the cheque in his favour he intended that K or his indorsee should receive the money. W obtained the cheque, forged K’s indorsement, paid the cheque into his … Continue reading North and South Wales Bank v Irvine: HL 5 Mar 1908
Surrey Asset Finance Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc: QBD 30 Nov 2000
That a cheque was endorsed ‘account payee’ did not mean that the drawer of the cheque would be entitled to damages for conversion from a paying bank crediting it to a different account. to succeed under this section the claimant had to show an immediate right to possession of the cheque. There appeared to be … Continue reading Surrey Asset Finance Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc: QBD 30 Nov 2000
Santander (UK) Plc v Parker: CANI 16 Jun 2015
Appeal by Mr Parker against the judgment dismissing Mr Parker’s appeal against the Order of Master Bell refusing a stay on possession by Santander (UK) PLC of the appellant’s dwelling house. Held: A promissory note was equivalent to cash, but only if backed by assets to pay on it. The application was quite without merit. … Continue reading Santander (UK) Plc v Parker: CANI 16 Jun 2015
Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers: HL 5 Mar 1891
The court considered the interpretation of the 1882 Act, which was said to be a codifying Act. Held: An Act is to be ascertained in the first instance from the natural meaning of its language and is not to be qualified by considerations deriving from the antecedent law.Lord Watson said: ‘The decision of the Queen’s … Continue reading Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers: HL 5 Mar 1891
Ladbroke and Co v Todd: 1914
The plaintiff had drawn a cheque and sent it to the payee by post. The letter was stolen and the thief took it to the defendant, a banker, and used it to open an account. In doing so, he forged the payee’s endorsement. The defendant believed him to be the payee. He was not introduced … Continue reading Ladbroke and Co v Todd: 1914
N V Slavenburg’s Bank v Intercontinental Natural Resources Ltd: ChD 1980
The Bermudan company defendant had assigned stocks as a security. The security was not registered, and nor did the company have any registration within the UK. It was not the practice of the Registrar of Companies to accept particulars of charges for registration from an overseas company with a place of business in England. Held: … Continue reading N V Slavenburg’s Bank v Intercontinental Natural Resources Ltd: ChD 1980
