Category: Banking

Thornbridge Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc: QBD 27 Nov 2015

The claimant, Thornbridge Limited, seeks damages for losses which it alleges it suffered as a result of entering into an interest rate swap with Barclays Bank PLC in 2008. The claimant alleges that the defendant was negligent and/or in breach of contract and/or in breach of statutory duty in respect of information and advice given to the claimant in relation to the swap.
Held: The claim failed: ‘This is in my view a case based on hindsight and a loan agreement which did not operate as the parties intended. As I have found on the evidence before me, it is not a case of a claimant being advised to enter, or being misled into entering, into a swap which in the circumstances was unsuitable. ‘
Moulder HHJ
[2015] EWHC 3430 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 October 2021; Ref: scu.556970

Deutsche Bank Ag London Branch v Receivers Appointed By The Court and Others: ComC 2 Jul 2020

Parties disputed the headship of a foreign state (Venezuela), and to ownership of funds held by the bank for that state
Teare J
[2020] EWHC 1721 (Comm), [2020] WLR(D) 382
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Deutsche Bank Ag London Branch v Receivers Appointed By The Court and Others ComC 24-Jul-2020
Rule on a dispute between the parties as to the declarations which should be made following the court’s judgment. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.652447

Philips (Hong Kong) Ltd v The Attorney General of Hong Kong: PC 9 Feb 1993

After referring to two Australian cases on penalty clauses in contracts: ‘These statements assist by making it clear that the court should not adopt an approach to provisions as to liquidated damages which could, as indicated earlier, defeat their purpose. Except possibly in the case of situations where one of the parties to the contract is able to dominate the other as to the choice of the terms of a contract, it will normally be insufficient to establish that a provision is objectionably penal to identify situations where the application of the provision could result in a larger sum being recovered by the injured party than his actual loss. Even in such situations so long as the sum payable in the event of non-compliance with the contract is not extravagant, having regard to the range of losses that it could reasonably be anticipated it would have to cover at the time the contract was made, it can still be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered and so a perfectly valid liquidated damage provision.’ but ‘A difficulty can arise where the range of possible loss is broad. Where it should be obvious that, in relation to part of the range, the liquidated damages are totally out of proportion to certain of the losses which may be incurred, the failure to make special provision for those losses may result in the ‘liquidated damages’ not being recoverable.’
The Board considered the nature of penalty clauses. The ‘court should not be astute to descry a ‘penalty clause” and emphasised that it would ‘normally be insufficient . . to identify situations where the application of the provision could result in a larger sum being recovered by the injured party than his actual loss’. However ‘A difficulty can arise where the range of possible loss is broad. Where it should be obvious that, in relation to part of the range, the liquidated damages are totally out of proportion to certain of the losses which may be incurred, the failure to make special provision for those losses may result in the ‘liquidated damages’ not being recoverable. (See the decision of the Court of Appeal on very special facts in Ariston SRL v Charly Records Ltd (1990) The Independent 13 April 1990.) However, the court has to be careful not to set too stringent a standard and bear in mind that what the parties have agreed should normally be upheld. Any other approach will lead to undesirable uncertainty especially in commercial contracts.’
Lord Woolf said: ‘the court has to be careful not to set too stringent a standard and bear in mind that what the parties have agreed should normally be upheld’, not least because ‘[a]ny other approach will lead to undesirable uncertainty especially in commercial contracts’.
Lord Woolf
(1993) 61 BLR 49, [1993] UKPC 3, (1993) 9 Const LJ 202
Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
Affirmed – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd HL 1-Jul-1914
The appellants contracted through an agent to supply tyres. The respondents contracted not to do certain things, and in case of breach concluded: ‘We agree to pay to the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Ltd. the sum of 5 l. for each and every tyre, . .
Cited – AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin 1986
High Court of Australia – Contract – Damages – Penalty – Agreement for hire of chattel – Failure to pay instalments of hire – Termination by owner pursuant to contractual power – Damages – Instalments due but unpaid – Damages for loss of . .
Cited – Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Plessnig 1989
(Australia) . .
Cited – Ariston SRL v Charly Records Ltd 13-Apr-1990
Penalty Clauses . .

Cited by:
Cited – Duffen v Fra Bo Spa CA 30-Apr-1998
The plaintiff had been appointed as an exclusive sales agent for the defendant for a minimum period of four years. The defendants terminated it eighteen months early claiming fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: The clause setting the damages . .
Cited – Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik and Another v United International Pictures and Others CA 21-Nov-2003
The parties entered into agreements licensing the exclusive distribution of encrypted television channels within Turkey. A clause provided a calculation of damages for a breach amounting to the balance of licence fees due, and other penalties, . .
Cited – Jeancharm Ltd (T/A Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd CA 16-Jan-2002
The claimant contracted to supply football shirts to the defendant, but claimed that clauses in the contract with regards to late delivery and payment operated as penalties and so were void at common law.
Held: The sums set out were immodest . .
Cited – Tullett Prebon Group Ltd v El-Hajjali QBD 31-Jul-2008
The defendant signed an employment contract to join the claimants as a senior broker. He changed his mind and decided to stay in his existing job. The new employers sued for breach of contract. The defendant said that the claimants had refused to . .
Cited – Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis SC 4-Nov-2015
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, . .
Cited – Wright and Another (Liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd) v The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd ChD 6-Mar-2018
IVA is a special form of contract
Liquidators asked the court whether sums sought by the insolvent company’s landlords were payable and or provable. Under an IVA, the copany had been paying reduced rents, but the arrangement document provided that the full rents would be restored on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.197033

Lloyds and Scottish Finance Ltd v Cyril Lord Carpet Sales Limited: HL 1992

The appellants were a Northern Irish company, which had entered liquidation, and the liquidator of that company. The respondent was a finance house. The company entered into a ‘block discounting’ agreement, which involved assigning customer credit sale debts in blocks to the finance house in return for a lump sum payment. The arrangement was based upon a trading agreement, as a form of master agreement, governing all subsequent individual transactions for the sale of each block of debts.
Held: Lord Wilberforce considered whether certain assignment of book debts were in substance absolute assignments by way of sale or assignments by way of charge and would be void against a liquidator for non-registration under the Companies Act. He said: ‘My Lords, the fact that the transaction consisted essentially in the provision of finance and the similarity in result between a loan and a sale, to all of which I have drawn attention, gives to the appellants’ arguments an undoubted force. It is only possible, in fact, to decide whether they are correct by paying close regard to what the precise contractual arrangements between them and the respondents were.’ and ‘it has to be appreciated that block discounting is essentially a method of providing finance. Commercially and in its economic result, it may not differ from lending money at interest: the ‘discounting charge’, which represents the finance house’s profit, is stated in term of so much per cent per annum, which percentage is no doubt based upon current interest rates. Legally, however, there is no doubt that discounting is not treated as the lending of money and that the asset discounted is not considered as the subject of a charge.’
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Scarman
[1992] BCLC 609
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dutton and Another v Davis and Another CA 4-May-2006
The appellant had transferred his property with the intention that it should be subject to a right on his part to repurchase it. He now said the sale was in practice merely a charge.
Held: The appeal failed. The legal nature of the transaction . .
Cited – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports CA 10-May-2012
The tenant appealed against a finding that the landlord was entitled to resist renewal of its lease under the 1954 Act challenging the stated intention of the landlord to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. It said that the proposed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.242532

Barnett-Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd and Others v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: ChD 12 Apr 2017

Second set of proceedings about a secured loan given to the claimants by the defendant bank. The bank, had discovered an external back to back swap (i.e. with an external counterparty), and asserted that it would be entitled to add the costs of unwinding that swap to the redemption charges. The claimants now said that the bank could no longer make that claim because it is res judicata (as they describe the point) in the sense that it ought to have been raised and dealt with in the first proceedings but was not.
Held: Following the first set of proceedings between the same parties over the same subject matter (a secured loan given to the claimants by the defendant bank), the defendant bank was not entitled to rely on an ‘external swap’ in a second set of proceedings, because to advance such a claim would have been an abuse of process within Johnson v Gore Wood.
Mann J underlined, the point made by Lord Bingham in Johnson v Gore Wood regarding the general applicability of the doctrine of abuse of process to both sides in litigation. After citing Lord Bingham’s speech, Mann J explained that: ‘I have emphasised words which make it plain that the doctrine of abuse involved is capable of applying to defendants and defences as it applies to claimants and claims, though it may be less often invoked against a defendant.’
Mann J
[2017] EWHC 834 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Barnett Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd and Another v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 14-Aug-2015
Part 8 claim raising a point of construction arising out of a loan agreement.
Held: The unwinding costs of the swap transaction then before him (which was an internal bank swap) could not be added to the redemption cost. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Spicer v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis QBD 6-Jul-2020
The claimant alleged defamation. He had been acquitted of a criminal offence and said that material published by the defendant continued to imply or assert his guilt of the offence. The defendant argued truth. The claimant now sought a strike out of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.581970

Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co: ComC 16 Jun 2006

The defendant bank had given the claimant a letter of credit, but when the goods under transport were discharged without the bills of lading,and the buyers became insolvent, the bank refused to pay. There had been proceedings in Korea, but the claimant now sought remedies here. The defendant denied the jurisdiction of the court.
Aikens J
[2006] EWHC 1450 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 5-Aug-2005
Entitlement to anti-suit injunction. . .

Cited by:
Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Cited – Trafigura Beheer Bv v Kookmin Bank Co ComC 27-Jul-2006
Application for a post-trial anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings brought by the defendant (‘Kookmin’) in Seoul Central District Court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.242581

Graiseley Properties Ltd and Others v Deutsche Bank Ag and Others: CA 8 Nov 2013

These two appeals result from the distortion or manipulation of the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (‘LIBOR’) frequently used as a reference rate in the calculation of interest in loan agreements or swap agreements. In both the current appeals banks are endeavouring to recover sums due under such agreements and the borrowers (or their guarantors) have sought permission to amend their pleadings to allege (inter alia) that the banks made implied representations as to the efficiency of or the non-manipulation of LIBOR.
Longmore, Underhill LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix
[2013] EWCA Civ 1372
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.517462

Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd v Heath: CA 5 Nov 2009

The court considered the effect of an agreement within the 1974 Act falling into more than one category of agreement. Part was used to be used for the repayment of an existing mortgage (restricted use credit), and part was unrestricted. The question was as to whether different parts of the contract could be treated separately so as to bring it under the Act.
Held: It is from the terms of the agreement that one must find out whether the agreement is one under which there are two or more parts, in different categories, or whether it, or part of it, falls into two or more categories. It is not correct to start from the proposition that more than one disparate category is concerned, and to conclude from this that the agreement must fall into two or more parts. Though this might cause practical difficulties, the section was intended to restrict avoidance of the Act. There was nothing in the agreement requiring a division of it into two parts. The agreement was one whose terms placed the whole of the agreement in two relevant and disparate categories under the Act, so that section 18(1)(b) applied. Thus seen, the total loan exceeded the maximum, and the whole agreement was not a regulated agreement.
Lloyd, Dyson, Waller VP CA LJJ
Times 19-Nov-2009, [2009] EWCA Civ 1135, [2010] 2 WLR 1081, [2010] Ch 254, [2009] 45 EG 104, [2010] 1 All ER 748, [2010] 6 EG 116
Bailii
Consumer Credit Act 1974 18
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McGinn v Grangewood Securities Ltd CA 23-Apr-2002
The lender used part of the loan to repay a small amount of arrears of the claimant on another loan. The part so used was not part of the objective of the loan, but one of the costs of obtaining it.
Held: The deduction was properly part of the . .
Cited – Burdis v Livsey QBD 2001
The several cases claimed the cost of provision by credit hire companies of car hire and repair services to the innocent victims of road accidents. The transactions were ‘res inter alios acta’ – collateral to the commission of the tort. . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Story and Another CA 7-May-1999
The court asked whether a series of smaller loans were governed by the 1974 Act. Three facilities had been provided under one loan agreement. 2 loans were held to be for unrestricted-use credit.
Held: Three credit agreements separately signed, . .
Cited – London North Securities Ltd v Meadows, and Meadows CA 27-Jul-2005
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.377552

Arklow Investments Ltd and Another v Maclean and Others: PC 1 Dec 1999

PC (New Zealand) Land was offered for sale. A potential buyer, the appellant was approached by a merchant bank with a proposal for finance. When he sought finance elsewhere, a company associated with the bank bought the land instead. The appellant complained that the information acquired by the bank on his behalf was confidential to him, and that the bank had acted in breach of its duty of confidence to him. He also claimed a breach of a duty of loyalty.
Held: A duty of loyalty arises when a relationship gives rise to a legitimate expectation, which equity will recognise, that the fiduciary will not utilise his or her position in a way which is adverse to the interests of the principal. The court was unable to see an evidential basis for finding that a relationship of trust and confidence, in this sense of undertaking an obligation of loyalty, arose in this case. The claimant did not accept the proposal, and so no relationship arose. Characterising the duty to respect confidential information as fiduciary does not create particular duties of loyalty which are imposed as a result of the nature of the particular relationship and the circumstances giving rise to it. It is not the label which defines the duty. Though the defendant had acquired confidential information there was insufficient evidence that that information had been misused, or that the claimant had suffered any loss as a result directly of such use. Some of the information for which confidence was claimed was not capable of being confidential.
Lord Steyn, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Sir Andrew Leggatt, Mr. Justice Henry
(Appeal No 17 of 1999), [1999] UKPC 51, [2000] 1 WLR 594
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mothew (T/a Stapley and Co) v Bristol and West Building Society CA 24-Jul-1996
The solicitor, acting in a land purchase transaction for his lay client and the plaintiff, had unwittingly misled the claimant by telling the claimant that the purchasers were providing the balance of the purchase price themselves without recourse . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Blake CA 16-Dec-1997
A former member of the security services, convicted for spying, had written a book. The AG appealed a refusal to prevent publication. The court upheld denied the appeal on the breach of fiduciary claim. The Attorney General amended his statement of . .
Cited – Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co Ltd CA 1948
The plaintiffs instructed the defendant to make tools for the manufacture of leather punches in accordance with drawings which the plaintiffs provided to the defendant for this purpose. The defendant used the drawings to make tools, and the tools to . .
Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
See Also – Arklow Investments Ltd v Maclean 19-May-2000
(High Court of New Zealand) The court considered the potential personal responsibility of a directors for costs incurred by the company in litigation: ‘Where a person is a major shareholder and dominant director in a company which brings . .
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.174631

Target Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: CA 12 Jul 2021

Whether loan administration services (including the operation of individual loan accounts and processing payments received from borrowers) supplied by the appellant (‘Target’) to Shawbrook Bank Limited (‘Shawbrook’) (which originates and provides mortgages and loans to borrowers) are exempt from VAT pursuant to the exemption for financial services contained in article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the ‘Principal VAT Directive’ or ‘PVD’) implemented in UK law in Group 5, Schedule 9 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994
[2021] EWCA Civ 1043
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.665595

Dextra Bank and Trust Company Limited v Bank of Jamaica: PC 26 Nov 2001

(Jamaica) A cheque was drawn which was used as part a complex financial arrangement intended to purchase foreign currency to work around Jamaica’s foreign exchange control regulations. It was asserted that by presenting the cheque used in the deception, it had been converted. The principle question was whether the cheque had been delivered as required under the Act. It was argued that the agent delivering the cheque was acting outside any authority entrusted to him by the drawer, and that accordingly no delivery was made. However his involvement was merely adventitious and could not invalidate delivery. The claimants sought restitution. The appellants asserted that they could rely upon the defence of ‘change of position’ and that the court should consider the relative degrees of fault of the parties. The court held that it was wrong to include any such calculation. ‘Their Lordships are, however, most reluctant to recognise the propriety of introducing the concept of relative fault into this branch of the common law, and indeed decline to do so. They regard good faith on the part of the recipient as a sufficient requirement in this context.’ The appeal was dismissed.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Sir Martin Nourse, Sir Patrick Russell
[2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 193
PC, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marfani and Co Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd CA 1968
A rogue opened a new bank account under a false name with the help of an incorrect reference from a valued customer.
Held: When an account is fraudulently opened with the bank in the name of another person by someone pretending to be that . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .

Cited by:
Cited – Rose v AIB Group (UK) plc and Another ChD 9-Jun-2003
The bank had received and paid substantial sums from the company before the petition for insolvency had been presented, and had discharged the director’s charge on his house. The liquidator sought restitution under the Act. The bank replied that it . .
Cited – Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited CA 23-Oct-2003
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
Cited – Commerzbank Ag v Price-Jones CA 21-Nov-2003
The respondent had received a bonus of andpound;250,000. His employers wrote to him in error increasing it. He later chose to stay rather than take redundancy because he now expected the full amount. He resisted an order for restitution. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.166873

In re Colonial Trusts Corporation: CA 13 Dec 1880

A company formed for the purchase and management of land, and which was empowered by articles to borrow money for the purposes of the company provided that the amount borrowed should not at any time exceed the amount of the unpaid subscribed capital, had issued debentures whereby they bound ‘themselves and their successors and their real and personal estate’ for payment of the sums advanced, with a proviso that the holders of the debentures should be entitled to be paid the principal and interest secured to them respectively pari passu. The company was in liquidation, a provisional liquidator having been appointed on the petition of the company, and a resolution having been subsequently passed for a voluntary winding-up, which was continued under supervision. On a claim by debenture holders to be entitled to a primary charge on the company’s property, including the uncalled capital.
Held: The debentures were a charge on the real and personal estate of the company as it existed at the commencement of the winding-up, but not including the then uncalled capital.
Held: Also, that the debenture holders, so far as they might be unable to obtain payment in full out of the property comprised in their charge, were at liberty to prove with the other creditors against the general assets.
Held: Also, that the winding-up must be taken to have commenced at the date of the appointment of the provisional liquidator.
Jessel MR used first the term ‘floating security.’
Jessel MR
(1880) 15 Ch D 465, [1880] UKLawRpCh 308
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.228301

Zumax Nigeria Ltd v First City Monument Bank Plc: ChD 14 Jul 2020

Allegation that a receiving bank had not credited accounts with sums transferred in. After the allegations had been rejected on appeal, the claimant was ordered to pay sums on account of costs and as security for costs, of being allowed to amend its claims. The defend sought dismissal of the claims in default.
Miles J
[2020] EWHC 1852 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.652775

Bank of New South Wales v Milvain: 1884

The farmer customer’s cheque had not been met by the bank, despite his having adequate funds to meet it. The bank appealed against the award of damages to the customer’s reputation.
Held: The customer, as a farmer, was not a trader, and could recover only a nominal award for damage to reputation.
(1884) 10 VLR 3
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society CA 1996
The Society, acting as a bank, had at first failed to pay its customer’s cheque for andpound;4,550, even though there were sufficient funds. The bank said that it had been reported lost. The customer sought damages to his business reputation.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.495212

Shanning International Ltd (in liquidation) v Lloyds Bank plc Lloyds Bank plc v Rasheed Bank: HL 2 Jul 2001

Under a series of cross guarantees, equipment was supplied to Iraq. Final payment was due on delivery of the final equipment. Before it could be delivered, the prohibitions came into effect against satisfying or making any claims in connection with transactions in matters covered by the UN resolution. The company went into liquidation, and sought claims under the guarantees from the bank. The bank agreed liability if it could itself be excused liability to the Iraqi company. It was held that the intention was to create a permanent prohibition. To hold otherwise would risk reviving contractual obligations which could no longer be performed. The ban might end but prohibition on the enforcement of earlier contracts must remain.
Bingham, Steyn, Hope, Hobhouse, Scott L
Times 02-Jul-2001, Gazette 23-Aug-2001, [2001] UKHL 31, [2001] 1 WLR 1462, [2001] 3 CMLR 14
Bailii, House of Lords
Council Regulation (EEC) 3541/92
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Shanning International Limited (In Liquidation) v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc (Formerly Lloyds Bank Plc) Part 20 and Rasheed Bank and Sbg Holdings Limited Part 20 CA 25-May-2000
. .
At first instance – Shanning International Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank plc; Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Rasheed Bank and another ComC 17-Dec-1999
The parties were linked together by a series of bonds, deposits, and guarantees and indemnities which had been designed to enable trade with a customer in Iraq. The Regulation operated to prevent any claim being made under the bond, and therefore . .
Cited – Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd HL 16-Mar-1989
The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation . .
Cited – William Dowling v Ireland, Attorney General and Minister for Agriculture and Foods ECJ 22-Oct-1992
Europa The combined provisions of Articles 3(3) and 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89 and subsequently by Regulation No 1639/91, do not provide for any possibility of granting a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.89187

Ion Science v Persons Unknown: 21 Dec 2020

Butcher J said that the ‘. . lex situs of a cryptoasset is the place where the person or company who owns it is domiciled. . . There is apparently no decided case in relation to the lex situs for a cryptoasset. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that there is at least a serious issue to be tried that that is the correct analysis.’
As to the suggestion that AB Bank was wrongly decided, Butcher J said:’ I am not going on this interim application in circumstances where I have only heard one side of the argument to express a view as to whether the case of AB Bank Ltd is correctly decided. It seems to me that it is distinguishable on the basis that it related to Norwich Pharmacal orders, whereas what is here sought is a Bankers Trust order and on the basis that in MacKinnon v Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation [1986] Ch 482 what was envisaged was that a Bankers Trust order might be one where there can be service out of the jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances and that those exceptional circumstances might include cases of hot pursuit. That is this type of case. As I say, I consider that there is a good arguable case that there is a head of jurisdiction under the necessary or proper party gateway. I should also say that it seems to me that there is a good arguable case that the Bankers Trust case can be said to relate wholly or principally to property within the jurisdiction on the basis of the argument which I have already identified, which is that the bitcoin are or were here and that the lex situs is where the owner resides or is domiciled. Accordingly, I consider there is a basis on which jurisdiction can be established.’
Butcher J
Unreported 21 December 2020
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – AB Bank Ltd, Off-Shore Banking Unit (Obu) v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc ComC 12-Aug-2016
Application to set aside Norwich Pharmacal Order: ‘The application raises the question whether the court has jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction of an application for the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal Order.’
Held: An order . .

Cited by:
Adopted – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.667435

Banker’s Trust v Shapira: CA 1980

Enforcement through innocent third party bank

Two forged cheques, each for USD500,000, had been presented by two men and as a result USD1,000,000 had been transferred to accounts in their names. The plaintiff sought to trace assets through the banks involved.
Held: The court approved the use of Norwich Pharmacol procedures in actions where those who have been deprived of property have sought to obtain from banks and others information to enable them to trace the assets. The bank, though involved through no fault of their own in the wrongful acts of others, came ‘under a duty to assist [the plaintiffs] by giving them and the court full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers’, with an important caveat that: ‘This new jurisdiction must of course be carefully exercised. It is a strong thing to order a bank to disclose the state of its customers account and the documents and correspondence relating to it.’ However the court would, if necessary, make a more wide-ranging order.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The plaintiff who has been defrauded has a right in equity to follow the money. He is entitled, in Lord Atkin’s words, to lift the latch of the banker’s door: see Banque Belge pour l’Etranger v Hambrouck [1921] 1 K B 321, 355. The customer, who has prima facie been guilty of fraud, cannot bolt the door against him. . . If the plaintiff’s equity is to be of any avail, he must be given access to the bank’s books and documents – for that is the only way of tracing the money or of knowing what has happened to it: see Mediterranea Raffineria Siciliana Petroli Spa v Mabanaft GmbH (unreported). So the court, in order to give effect to equity, will be prepared in a proper case to make an order on the bank for their discovery.’
Lord Denning MR
[1980] 1 WLR 1274, [1980] 3 All ER 353
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Approved – A v C (Note) ChD 1980
The plaintiffs said the first defendant had defrauded them of substantial sums, and implicated other defendants. They claimed against five defendants variously for conspiracy to defraud and deceit and for breach of warranty. They also sought to . .
Cited – Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck 1921
Money was stolen by a thief. He then paid it by way of a gift into the bank account of the woman with whom he was living. The victim claimed its return from the woman and her bankers. GBP315 of the balance in her account represented part of the . .
Cited – Upmann v Elkan CA 5-Jun-1871
The defendant freight forwarding agent was innocently in possession of consignments of counterfeit cigars in transit to Germany through a London dock. The action was not for discovery, but for an order restraining the forwarder from releasing the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – A J Bekhor and Co Ltd v Bilton CA 6-Feb-1981
The plaintiff had applied for disclosure of assets under the Rules of the Supreme Court in support of a Mareva freezing order. The rules were held not to provide any such power: disclosure of assets could not be obtained as part of discovery as the . .
Cited – Cartier International Ag and Others v British Telecommunications Plc and Another SC 13-Jun-2018
The respondent ISP companies had been injuncted to stop the transmission of websites which infringed the trade mark rights of the claimants. The ISPs now appealed from the element of the order that they pay the claimants’ costs of implementing the . .
Cited – Kryiakou v Christie’s QBD 2017
Warby J summarised the five criteria for the grant of a bankers Trust order: there must be good grounds for concluding that the money or assets about which information is sought belonged to the claimant.
whether there is a real prospect that . .
Cited – Fetch.AI Ltd and Another v Persons Unknown Category A and Others ComC 15-Jul-2021
Cryptocurrency Action
The claimants sought damages and other remedies saying that the unknown defendants had obtained access to the private key guarding their crypto currency assets, and then sold them at an undervalue, acquiring substantial profits for themselves in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.272823

United Dominions Trust Limited v Ennis: CA 1968

The defendant, a waterman in the Port of London, entered into a hire-purchase contract with the claimant finance company in respect of a motor car. After the first instalment, his wages were reduced by a dock strike. He wrote with the keys and log book saying he wished to terminate the agreement because he could not fulfil its terms. He returned the car to the dealer which had supplied it and the company later took possession of it. Clause 8 of the agreement gave the company the right to terminate the agreement if the hirer failed to pay any instalment. Clause 10 gave the hirer the right to terminate the agreement at any time by returning the car to the company. Clause 11 provided that, if the agreement should be terminated under either provision, the hirer should pay the company such an amount as together with the instalments already paid should amount to two-thirds of the total hiring cost as agreed compensation for depreciation. The company issued a writ claiming the amount provided for in clause 11 on the grounds that the hirer had terminated the contract under clause 10. Later, during the course of the proceedings, it was amended to add an alternative claim for damages for repudiation. The matter was remitted to the county court where the judge held that the hirer had terminated the agreement and gave judgment for the company.
Held: The company must be taken to have terminated the agreement under clause 8 and that, since the sum provided for by clause 11 was a penalty (not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss), it could not be recovered. There being no claim by the company for any identified loss, the court directed that the appeal be allowed and that judgment be entered for the hirer.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘In the absence of a consensual termination, I think the finance company must be taken to have terminated the hiring under the powers given to them by clause 8 of the agreement. That clause says that ‘should the hirer fail to pay . . any subsequent instalment . . the owner may forthwith and without any notice terminate the hiring.’ That is how this agreement came to an end. The owners exercised their right to terminate the hiring: and the hirer was content that they should do so. On such a termination the owners cannot rely on the minimum payment clause: for the simple reason that they are terminating for a breach; and in that case the minimum payment clause is a penalty and unenforceable under the decision of the House of Lords in Campbell Discount Co. Ltd v Bridge . . .
There remains the alternative claim for repudiation. It is said that Mr. Ennis repudiated the contract. I very much doubt myself whether his letters and his conduct should be considered as repudiation. He was simply asking for the agreement to be terminated. He was not repudiating it. But even if it be treated as a repudiation, it is clear that the repudiation was never accepted by the finance company. After receiving his letter, they treated the contract as being still continuing. They claimed under the minimum payment clause, which is a thing they could not possibly have done if there had been an acceptance of repudiation. By so doing, they elected to treat it as continuing. Mr. Goodenday said they accepted the repudiation by retaking possession of the car. But that was not pleaded. Nor has it ever been suggested hitherto. The county court judge said they accepted the repudiation in November, 1963, when they amended their pleading. That was far too late. They had already evinced their intention to treat the agreement as continuing. I do not think they can rely on the alleged repudiation.’
Harman LJ said that the hirer had not exercised his option to terminate the agreement: ‘As to the other point, I think it may be said that the letter was the expression of a determination not to be bound any further by the agreement. If there had been a prompt acceptance of that, I am not sure I should not have held that there was a repudiation, because a repudiation needs both the expression of such an intention and its acceptance on the other side. There clearly was no acceptance on the other side. The plaintiffs elected not to accept repudiation: they elected to treat the agreement as binding and to sue him under it and not to sue him for damages for its breach. Therefore, they cannot rely on repudiation.’
Salmon LJ said that the company had terminated the contract under clause 8: ‘I think that the finance house must be taken to have repossessed the goods under clause 8, as they were entitled to do, since the hirer was in arrear with the first instalment. As I have already stated, this would give the finance house no right to recover any part of what would then clearly be a penalty under clause 11.’
Lord Denning MR, Harman LJ, Salmon LJ
[1968] 1 QB 54
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Stocznia Gdynia Sa v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd CA 13-Feb-2009
Orders were placed for the construction of ships. They were not delivered. The buyer, the defendant, cancelled the orders. The defendants sought the loss of profit. The claimants said they were entitled only to the repayment of instalments. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.282634

IFE Fund Sa v Goldman Sachs International: ComC 21 Nov 2006

A claim advanced depended on the defendant having owed a duty to provide information. Toulson J said: ‘[The claimant] relies on the publication of the SIM [i.e. a Syndicate Information Memorandum] to give rise to the alleged duty of care. The relevant paragraphs of the SIM are not in my view to be characterised in substance as a notice excluding or restricting a liability for negligence, but more fundamentally as going to the issue whether there was a relationship between the parties (amounting to or equivalent to that of professional adviser and advisee) such as to make it just and reasonable to impose the alleged duty of care’.
Toulson J
[2006] EWHC 2887 (Comm), [2007] 1 Lloyds Rep 264
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – IFE Fund Sa v Goldman Sachs International CA 31-Jul-2007
. .
Cited – Avrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd ChD 27-Jul-2012
The claimants had bought a painting (Odalisque) through the defendant auctioneers. They now claimed that it had been misattributed to Kustodiev, and claimed in negligence and misrepresentation.
Held: Based on the connoisseurship evidence, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.246732

Boulton v Welsh: 27 Apr 1837

The note for 2001. drawn by H. H., dated 18th July last, payable three months after date, and indorsed by you, became due yesterday, and is returned to me unpaid, I therefore request you will let me have the amount forth with : Held, not sufficient
notice of dishonour.
[1837] EngR 666, (1837) 3 Bing NC 688, (1837) 132 ER 575
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.313783

Citibank Na and Another v QVT Financial Lp: CA 22 Jan 2007

Securitisation of Channel Tunnel debts.
The controlling noteholder of a series of notes issued by the company and secured by a trust deed argued that its extensive powers, while its notes remained outstanding, to direct the trustee of the trust deed how to exercise its discretion (for example, as to when to take enforcement action) diminished the role of the trustee below the irreducible core which a valid trust must have.
Held: The court rejected that argument by reference to various other powers which the trust deed vested in the trustee and the trustee’s obligation to act in good faith.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Arden and Dyson LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 11, [2007] 4 All ER 736
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.248013

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell Borough Council: ChD 23 Feb 1993

A bank, having made payment under an void interest rate swap agreement to a local authority, was entitled to recover the payments made under the equitable doctrine of restitution. It would be wrong to allow the local authorities to enjoy an unjust enrichment. There had been no effective consideration given by the local authorities. ‘The application of the principle is subject to the requirement that the courts should not grant a remedy which amounts to the direct or indirect enforcement of a contract which the law requires to be treated as ineffective.’
Hobhouse J
Independent 25-Feb-1993, Times 23-Feb-1993, [1994] 4 All ER 890
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council CA 30-Dec-1993
A bank paid money to a local authority under an interest rate swap agreement, which was held later to be outside the local authority’s powers.
Held: The local authority was to repay the money paid to it for an ultra vires purpose (a swap . .
Cited – Yaxley v Gotts and Another CA 24-Jun-1999
Oral Agreement Creating Proprietory Estoppel
The defendant offered to give to the Plaintiff, a builder, the ground floor of a property in return for converting the house, and then managing it. They were friends, and the oral offer was accepted. The property was then actually bought in the name . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.90409

National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corp Ltd (Jamaica): PC 28 Apr 2009

Jamaica – The customer appealed against refusal of an order requiring its bank not to close the customer accounts after the customer had been accused of fraud. There was no evidence that the account was being used unlawfully.
Held: In the absence of express contrary agreement or statutory impediment, a contract by a bank to provide banking services to a customer is terminable upon reasonable notice. It was wrong to approach requests for mandatory injunctions with a box-ticking approach, and ‘Factors which the court might have taken into account in this case if there had been a triable issue were, first, that the injunction required the bank to continue against its will to provide confidential services for the plaintiffs; secondly, that the injunction would require the bank to continue to incur reputational risks and possible exposure to legal action; thirdly, that it was by no means clear that the plaintiffs would be able to satisfy a claim under the cross-undertaking in damages; fourthly, that the plaintiffs’ case was, even if not (as their Lordships think) hopeless, certainly very weak, and fifthly, that the plaintiffs could no doubt have obtained alternative banking services from any bank whom they could persuade that they were not running a fraudulent scheme.’
Lord Hoffmann said in relation to interlocutory injunctions: ‘The purpose of such an injunction is to improve the chances of the court being able to do justice after a determination of the merits at the trial. At the interlocutory stage, the court must therefore assess whether granting or withholding an injunction is more likely to produce a just result. As the House of Lords pointed out in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, that means that if damages will be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, there are no grounds for interference with the defendant’s freedom of action by the grant of an injunction. Likewise, if there is a serious issue to be tried and the plaintiff could be prejudiced by the acts or omissions of the defendant pending trial and the cross-undertaking in damages would provide the defendant with an adequate remedy if it turns out that his freedom of action should not have been restrained, then an injunction should ordinarily be granted.
In practice, however, it is often hard to tell whether either damages or the cross-undertaking will be an adequate remedy and the court has to engage in trying to predict whether granting or withholding an injunction is more or less likely to cause irremediable prejudice (and to what extent) if it turns out that the injunction should not have been granted or withheld, as the case may be. The basic principle is that the court should take whichever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other. This is an assessment in which, as Lord Diplock said in the American Cyanamid case [1975] AC 396 , 408: ‘It would be unwise to attempt even to list all the various matters which may need to be taken into consideration in deciding where the balance lies, let alone to suggest the relative weight to be attached to them.’ ‘
Lord Hoffmann also discussed the making of ex parte applications: ‘there appears to have been no reason why the application for an injunction should have been made ex parte, or at any rate, without some notice to the bank. Although the matter is in the end one for the discretion of the judge, audi alterem partem is a salutary and important principle. Their Lordships therefore consider that a judge should not entertain an application of which no notice has been given unless either giving notice would enable the defendant to take steps to defeat the purpose of the injunction (as in the case of a Mareva or Anton Piller order) or there has been literally no time to give notice before the injunction is required to prevent the threatened wrongful act. These two alternative conditions are reflected in rule 17.4(4) of the Supreme Court of Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2002. Their Lordships would expect cases in the latter category to be rare, because even in cases in which there was no time to give the period of notice required by the rules, there will usually be no reason why the applicant should not have given shorter notice or even made a telephone call. Any notice is better than none.’
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mance
[2009] UKPC 16, Times 06-May-2009, [2009] 1 WLR 1405
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham ChD 1970
In the context of an interlocutory application for an enforcing a mandatory injunction, Megarry J said: ‘on motion, as contrasted with the trial, the court is far more reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction than it would be to grant a comparable . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) HL 11-Oct-1990
The validity of certain United Kingdom legislation was challenged on the basis that it contravened provisions of the EEC Treaty by depriving the applicants of their Community rights to fish in European waters, and an interlocutory injunction was . .
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd 1987
The grant of an interlocutory injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, depends on what is sometimes called the balance of convenience but is more accurately an assessment of whether granting or withholding the injunction at that stage is more . .

Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Rochdale Drinks Distributors Ltd CA 13-Oct-2011
The revenue appealed against refusal of its petition for the winding up of the company for non-payment of a VAT assessment. The company said that the assessment was disputed. The revenue said that the company had been run for the purpose of . .
Cited – NATS (Services) Ltd v Gatwick Airport Ltd and Another TCC 2-Oct-2014
NATS had tendered unsuccessfully for a contract to provide air traffic control services at Gatrwick airport, and challenged the award. GAL denied that the Regulations applied and now sought disapplication of the automatic suspension from the award . .
Cited – Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare QBD 29-Mar-2012
The claimant had obtained an order restricting the defendant from asserting any kind of insolvency in the claimant. The defendant now sought the strike out of the claim as an abuse of process. He said that any such disclosure had been on one . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.341819

Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank Plc: CA 15 Jul 2008

The parties disputed the result of a contract for the purchase of cotton with the contract underwritten by a bank.
Held: After the breach of the contract, the claimant had failed properly to mitigate his losses. That failure in turn itself operated as a new cause with the result that the guarantor under the letter of credit was released from his liability. The claimants had a duty to mitigate its losses was not removed by section 11 of the 1977 Act.
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Lord Justice Laws and and Lord Justice Moore-Bick
[2008] EWCA Civ 819, Times 12-Aug-2008, [2008] Bus LR 1762
Bailii
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 11
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank Plc ComC 15-May-2007
The court considered the liability of a bank under its guarantee of a transaction. The court set out the elements of the tort of deceit: (a) The defendant must have made a representation which can be clearly identified.
(b) It must be a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.270813

Playboy Club London Limited and Others v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa: CA 18 May 2016

The club brought an action against the bank as to a reference given on behalf of a customer. They had certified him ‘good’ for 1.6m pounds, despite his having no funds in his account.
Laws, Longmore, David Richards LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 457, [2016] WLR(D) 266, [2016] 2 BCLC 442, [2016] 1 WLR 3169
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Playboy Club London Ltd and Others v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant casino alleged negligence by the defendant bank in a reference it had given for a mutual customer, leading to substantial losses. The requests was made on behalf of the claimant by a third party acting as its undisclosed agent. The . .
At QBD – Playboy Club London Ltd and Others v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa QBD 10-Jul-2014
The claimant casino alleged negligence by the defendant bank in a reference it had given for a mutual customer, leading to substantial losses. The requests was made on behalf of the claimant by a third party acting as its undisclosed agent. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others SC 26-Jul-2018
The Playboy casino required a reference for a customer, but asked for this through a third party. The bank was not aware of the agency but gave a good reference for a customer who had never deposited any money with them and nor to whom it had issued . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.564451

Laurent Gbagbo v Council: ECJ 19 Dec 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Appeal – Specific restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities regarding the situation in Cote d’Ivoire – Fund freezing – Access to the territory of the European Union – No individual notification of such measures – Recourse to justice – Time-limit – Article 111 and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Article 47 CFREU
Cruz Villalon A-G
C-478/11, [2012] EUECJ C-478/11
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Laurent Gbagbo v Council ECJ 23-Apr-2013
ECJ Appeal – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities – Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Force majeure – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.468777

CB Liggett (Liverpool) Limited v Barclays Bank Limited: 1928

The defendant bank had paid cheques drawn on the plaintiff’s account in breach of a mandate requiring two signatories. The plaintiff brought an action for money had and received.
Held: The action failed. The bank was entitled to the benefit of that payment if it could show that that payment went to discharge a legal liability of the customer. Wright J referred to ‘the equitable doctrine under which a person who has in fact paid the debts of another without authority is allowed to take advantage of his payment’ and continued: ‘I think that the equity I have referred to ought to be extended even in the case where the cheque which was paid was paid out of the credit balance, and was not paid by way of overdraft, so that the banker will be entitled to the benefit of that payment if he can show that that payment went to discharge a legal liability of the customer. The customer in such a case is really no worse off, because the legal liability which has to be discharged is discharged, though it is discharged under circumstances which at common law would not entitle the bank to debit the customer.’
Wright J
[1928] 1 KB 48
England and Wales
Cited by:
Limited – Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd’s Bank Plc CA 18-May-2000
The bank received a garnishee order nisi, but acted before it was made absolute to pay the judgment creditor.
Held: The bank had no defence against the customer claiming restitution relying on the equitable doctrine that one person paying the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.427358

Calico Printers Association v Barclays Bank Limited: 1931

There is no privity of contract between the payee/customer of a remitting bank and the collecting bank arising from the processing of a cheque. Wright J said: ‘To create privity it must be established not only that the principal contemplated that a sub-agent would perform part of the contract, but also that the principal authorised the agent to create privity of contract between the principal and the sub-agent, which is a very different matter requiring precise proof.’
Wright J
(1931) 36 Com Cas 71
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Grosvenor Casinos Ltd v National Bank of Abu Dhabi ComC 17-Mar-2008
Banker’s reference no guarantee
An Arab businessman lost pounds 18m at the claimant casino, and wrote scrip cheques against his account with the defendant. The claimant obtained judgment, but being unable to enforce that judgment pursued his bank. The club had used a system where . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.268095

London Joint Stock Bank Ltd v MacMillan and Arthur: HL 21 Jun 1919

The duty which a customer owes to a bank is to draw cheques with reasonable care to prevent forgery, and if, owing to neglect of this duty, forgery takes place, the customer is liable for the loss. If a customer signs a cheque in blank and leaves it to an agent to fill up, he is bound by the instrument as filled up by the agent.
Lord Chancellor (Finlay), Viscount Haldane, Lords Shaw and Parmoor
[1919] UKHL 367, 56 SLR 367
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.632777

WWRT Ltd v Tyshchenko and Another: ChD 21 Apr 2021

Allegation that the Defendants carried out an extensive fraud on the Ukrainian bank, JSC Fortuna Bank, between 2011 and 2014, during which time the bank was (it is claimed) ultimately owned by Mr Tyshchenko. The fraud is said to have been carried out through the grant of multiple loans to borrowing companies that did not engage in substantial commercial activity and who had no intention of repaying the loans.
Bacon J
[2021] EWHC 939 (Ch), [2021] Bus LR 972, [2021] WLR(D) 226
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.662133

United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood: CA 24 Feb 1966

The defendant was MD of a company which borrowed from the plaintiff. The company drew five bills as security, and the defendant endorsed them. When the company failed, the plaintiff gave notice of dishonour and sued the defendant as indorsee. The defence was that the plaintiff had been acting as an unregistered moneylender, and that the debt was void. The plaintiff claimed the benefit of the exception in section 6(d) of the 1900 Act.
Held: Once it was shown that the plaintiff lent money in the course of business, it was for them to show that they acted as a bank. The plaintiff failed to show that it was a bank, but did establish that it had a reputation as such, and that was sufficient. The defendant’s appeal failed.
The law has long recognised that banks maintain accounts on the basis of entries into the bank’s books, not the amount of physical cash that is held.
The following characteristics of the business of banking were set out:
(a) the conduct of current accounts;
(b) the payment of cheques drawn on bankers; and
(c) the collection of cheques for customers.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Like many other beings, a banker is easier to recognise than to define’
Lord Denning MR, Harman, Diplock LJJ
[1966] 1 All ER 968, [1966] 2 QB 431
Moneylenders Act 1900 6(d)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Bank of Chettinad Ltd of Colombo vCommissioners of Income Tax, Colombo PC 1948
Whether a company is a bank or undertakes the ‘business of banking’ can bear a different meaning at different times. . .
Applied – North Central Wagon Finance Co Ltd v Brailsford 1962
The onus of proof of establishing the application of the exception in the section lay with the company claiming it. . .
Affirmed on appeal from – United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood QBD 1965
For a company to be taken to carry on the business of banking money it must be able to show that it took money on current accounts. . .
Cited – Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation CA 1921
The service of the order nisi binds the debt in the hands of the garnishee – that is, it creates a charge in favour of the judgment creditor. No cause of action for non payment arises in respect of money standing on a current account until the . .
Cited – In re Shields’ Estate, Bank of Ireland (Governor and Co.), Petitioners 1901
The court considered whether the maintenance of current accounts was essential before a business could be considered to be a bank. . .
Cited – In re Bottomgate Industrial Co-operative Society QBD 1891
An industrial society took loans on deposit which were entered in a book. in the form of a banking book.
Held: It had by doing so carried on the business of a banker. . .
Cited – State Savings Bank of Victoria Comissioners v Permewan Wright and Co Ltd 1915
To be held to be a banker in law, it was not necessary for a company to open current accounts. . .
Cited – North Central Wagon Finance Co Ltd v Brailsford 1962
The onus of proof of establishing the application of the exception in the section lay with the company claiming it. . .
Cited – Edgelow v MacElwee 1918
The court should be astute to see that the Act is not broken. . .
Cited – Bank of Chettinad Ltd of Colombo vCommissioners of Income Tax, Colombo PC 1948
Whether a company is a bank or undertakes the ‘business of banking’ can bear a different meaning at different times. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.260038

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc v Allen: CA 20 Nov 2009

The claimant had complained that as a wheelchair user, the bank had failed to provide wheelchair access to its facilities in Sheffield or any satisfactory alternative.
Dyson, Wall, Hughes LLJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1213
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.380344

Goldcorp Exchange Ltd and others v Liggett and others: PC 25 May 1994

(New Zealand) The non allocated claimants purchased gold bullion from a company for future delivery on a non allocated basis. The company stored and insured the metal, but the claimants had a right to call for delivery of their part within 7-days. The company became insolvent and, a bank holding a debenture appointed receivers. R brought claims of a proprietary nature. The receivers applied to the High Court of New Zealand for directions on the disposal of the bullion. The judge rejected the claims of the non allocated claimants. The Court of Appeal in New Zealand allowed their appeal on different grounds.
Held: The receivers’ appeal succeeded. An equitable title could not pass under a simple contract for the sale of unascertained goods merely by virtue of the sale, since the buyer could not acquire title until it was known to what exact goods the proposed title related. The non allocated claimants were not entitled to assert any proprietary rights over the remaining stocks of bullion arising out of a fiduciary relationship since any such relationship was no different from the contractual relationship between the parties.
‘The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that it creates obligations of a different character from those deriving from the contract itself’.
Lord Mustill
[1994] 2 All ER 806, [1994] UKPC 3, [1994] UKPC 18, [1995] 1 AC 74, [1994] 2 BCLC 578, [1994] 3 WLR 199, (1994) 138 (LB) 127, (1994) Tr LR 434
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Foskett v McKeown and Others CA 27-Jun-1997
Various people had paid money with the promise of acquiring an interest in land in Portugal. The scheme was fraudulent. The funds had been used to purchase a life/investment policy. The policy was held in trust for the fraudster’s mother but he had . .
Cited – Lehtimaki and Others v Cooper SC 29-Jul-2020
Charitable Company- Directors’ Status and Duties
A married couple set up a charitable foundation to assist children in developing countries. When the marriage failed an attempt was made to establish a second foundation with funds from the first, as part of W leaving the Trust. Court approval was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.245740

Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Engineering Co Pty Ltd: PC 1975

A court looking to see if an unconscionable bargain had been reached could look at whether or not the transaction benefits the mortgagor. The fact that a covenantor had obtained and would continue to enjoy benefits under the relevant agreement which he claimed to be unenforceable was pro tanto a reason for holding that the covenant was not in unreasonable restraint of trade.
Lord Cross
[1975] AC 561
Australia
Citing:
Cited – Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Engineering Co Pty Ltd PC 1975
A court looking to see if an unconscionable bargain had been reached could look at whether or not the transaction benefits the mortgagor. The fact that a covenantor had obtained and would continue to enjoy benefits under the relevant agreement which . .

Cited by:
Cited – Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Engineering Co Pty Ltd PC 1975
A court looking to see if an unconscionable bargain had been reached could look at whether or not the transaction benefits the mortgagor. The fact that a covenantor had obtained and would continue to enjoy benefits under the relevant agreement which . .
Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd CA 1985
The court was asked whether the terms of a lease and lease back amounted to an unconscionable bargain and was unenforceable.
Held: The court affirmed the decision at first instance, but emphasised the need for unconscientious behaviour rather . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.219908

Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Others v Novo Banco, Sa: CA 4 Nov 2016

Moore-Bick VP CA, Gloster, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1092
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco Sa ComC 7-Aug-2015
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.571224

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco Sa: ComC 7 Aug 2015

Hamblen J
[2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At ComC – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .
Appeal from – Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Others v Novo Banco, Sa CA 4-Nov-2016
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.551295

Kotnik And Others v Drzavni Zbor Republike Slovenije: ECJ 19 Jul 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Validity and interpretation of the Banking Communication from the Commission – Interpretation of Directives 2001/24/EC and 2012/30/EU – State aid to banks in the context of the financial crisis – Burden-sharing – Writing off equity capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Right to property – Protection of the interests of shareholders and others – Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions
K Lenaerts, P
C-526/14, [2016] EUECJ C-526/14
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.567327

LBI HF v Kepler Capital Markets SA: ECJ 24 Oct 2013

ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions – Directive 2001/24/EC – Articles 3, 9 and 32 – National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the effects of winding-up proceedings – Legislative measure prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium
The Court referred to the purpose of the Reorganisation Directive: ‘At the outset, it must be borne in mind that, as is apparent from recital 6 in its preamble, Directive 2001/24 seeks to establish mutual recognition by the member states of the measures taken by each of them to restore to viability the credit institutions which it has authorised. That objective, and that of guaranteeing equal treatment of creditors, laid down in recital 16 to that directive, require that the reorganisation and winding-up measures taken by the authorities of the home member state have, in all the other member states, the effects which the law of the home member state confers on them.’
The Directive established: ‘a system of mutual recognition of national reorganisation and winding-up measures, without seeking to harmonise national legislation on that subject.’
T von Danwitz P
C-85/12, [2013] EUECJ C-85/12
Bailii
Directive 2001/24/EC
European
Cited by:
Cited – Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA SC 4-Jul-2018
A banking facility was provided under a contract applying English law and jurisdiction. The parties now disputed whether on an assignment the dispute was to be resolved under Portuguese law.
Held: Recognition in the United Kingdom of measures . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.516986

Commissioners of State Savings Bank v Permewan, Wright and Co: 18 Dec 1914

(High Court of Australia) The court considered the nature of negligence in a banker: ‘the test of negligence is whether the transaction of paying in any given cheque [coupled with the circumstances antecedent and present] was so out of the ordinary course that it ought to have aroused doubts in the bankers’ mind, and caused them to make inquiry.’
Griffith C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Powers and Rich JJ.
(1914) 19 CLR 457, [1914] HCA 83
Austlii
Australia
Cited by:
Approved – Marfani and Co Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd CA 1968
A rogue opened a new bank account under a false name with the help of an incorrect reference from a valued customer.
Held: When an account is fraudulently opened with the bank in the name of another person by someone pretending to be that . .
Cited – Architects of Wine Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc CA 20-Mar-2007
The bank appealed summary judgement against it for conversion of cheques. The cheques had been obtained by a fraud.
Held: The court considered the question of neglience under section 4: ‘The section 4 qualified duty does not require an . .
Approved – Commissioners of Taxation v English, Scottish and Australian Bank Limited PC 2-Jan-1920
The Board considered what would amount to negligence in a bank.
Held: The test in Permewan was to be applied by ‘the standard to be derived from the ordinary practice of bankers, not individuals.’ A customer of the bank is a person who has a . .
Approved – Lloyds Bank Limited v The Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China CA 1929
Sankey LJ said: ‘a bank cannot be held to be liable for negligence merely because they have not subjected an account to a microscopic examination. It is not to be expected that the officials of banks should also be amateur detectives.’ . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 July 2021; Ref: scu.250551

Lloyds Bank Limited v E B Savory and Company: HL 1932

The bank was held to be negligent (depriving it of the protection of section 82) not to ask a customer though respectively introduced the name of his employer and in the case of a married woman the name of her husband’s employer. Whether a bank was negligent or not is to be decided subjectively from the standard of a reasonable man carrying on business of banking and endeavouring to do so in such manner as is calculated to protect itself and its customers against fraud.
Lord Wright said that a bank does not have ‘the duty of being amateur detectives’.
Lord Buckmaster said: ‘These rules and statements are not a legal measure of the liability of a bank. They may fall short, or they may exceed what the court may regard as their duty in a particular case, but they afford a very valuable criterion of obvious risks against which the bank thinks it is their duty to guard.’
Lord Buckmaster, Lord Warrington. Lord Wright
[1933] AC 201, [1932] All ER 105
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Architects of Wine Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc CA 20-Mar-2007
The bank appealed summary judgement against it for conversion of cheques. The cheques had been obtained by a fraud.
Held: The court considered the question of neglience under section 4: ‘The section 4 qualified duty does not require an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.250555

Banco Santander Sa v Bayfern Ltd and Others: ComC 29 Jun 1999

The court was asked whether the risk of fraud on the part of the beneficiary of a confirmed deferred payment letter of credit is to be borne by the issuing bank (and so possibly the applicant for the credit) or by the confirming bank where the confirming bank has discounted its own payment obligations to the beneficiary and paid over the discounted sum to it and the fraud is discovered only after it has done so but before the maturity date of the letter of credit.
Held: It is well established that the beneficiary of a deferred payment letter of credit, if he has obtained it by fraud or deception, will not be entitled to the benefit of the deferred credit. A bank having made discounted advances against the letter was therefore unable to claim re-imbursement when such fraud was later discovered.
ComC Deferred payment letter of credit – fraud on part of beneficiary discovered before maturity date of letter of credit – confirming bank having discounted own obligation to beneficiary of letter – whether risk of fraud to be borne by issuing or confirming bank.
Langley J
Times 29-Jun-1999, Gazette 30-Jun-1999, [1999] EWHC 284 (Comm)
Bailii
Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993) of the International Chamber of Commerce
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stoddart v Union Trust Ltd CA 1912
. .
Cited – European Asian Bank AG v Punjab and Sind Bank CA 1983
The court heard a claim by the appellant bank against the issuing bank of a deferred payment letter of credit. The appellants had negotiated the credit by paying its discounted value to the Beneficiary. Between that date and the maturity date fraud, . .
Cited – The Society of Lloyds v CIB 1993
. .
Cited – In re Charge Card Services Ltd ChD 1987
The court discussed the historic availability of set-off in an insolvency: ‘By the turn of the [20th] century, therefore, the authorities showed that debts whose existence and amount were alike contingent at the date of the receiving order, and . .
Cited – United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada HL 1983
The House was asked as to the question of fraud which would entitle a banker to refuse to pay under a letter of credit notwithstanding the rule requiring payment when the documents were in order on their face.
Held: The whole commercial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.78128

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury: CA 13 Jan 2011

Under the 2009 Order, the appellant Bank’s UK operations had been shut down. It appealed against the Order, but the respondent had brought evidence, closed save to the respondent, and the order had been confirmed.
Held: The bank’s appeal failed. The hearing was almost entirely an open hearing.
Maurice Kay VP LJ, Elias LJ, Pitchford LJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1, [2012] QB 101, [2011] Lloyd’s Rep FC 168, [2011] 3 WLR 714, [2011] UKHRR 208, [2011] HRLR 13, [2011] 2 All ER 802
Bailii
Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009, Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Appeal from – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 1) SC 19-Jun-2013
Closed Material before Supreme Court
Under the 2009 order, the appellant Bank had been effectively shut down as to its operations within the UK. It sought to use the appeal procedure, and now objected to the use of closed material procedure. The Supreme Court asked itself whether it . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.427980

National Westminster Bank plc v Patel and another: QBD 1 May 2004

The defendant had executed a charge over his property in favour of the claimant. It was an all monies charge and the bank sought to enforce its security in respect of borrowings taken only after the charge. The customer said that the nature of the charge had not been adequately explained to him.
Held: The evidence was to the effect that the defendant had been told that the security applied only to the loan being taken at the time. The bank was ordered to vacate its charge.
MacDuff QC HHJ
[2004] All ER (D) 429
England and Wales

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.536637

Adibe v National Westminster Bank Plc: ChD 16 Mar 2017

[2017] EWHC 1655 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd SC 16-May-2018
The parties disputed whether a contract (licence to occupy an office) had been varied by an oral agreement, where the terms prohibited such.
Held: The ‘no oral variation’ clause applied. Such clauses were in common commercial use and served a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.631436

Walter v Haynes: 6 Sep 1824

An action of assumpsit was brought upon a bill of exchange. A notice of dishonour had been posted in a letter addressed to ‘Mr Haynes, Bristol’. This was held not to be sufficient proof of notice.
Lord Abbott CJ implied that what was required was that the letter did in fact come into the hands of the person for whom it was intended. Normally, the post was sufficiently reliable for posting a letter to be tantamount to delivery into that person’s hands, but the address on this communication was not sufficiently precise for that to be presumed: ‘It is, therefore, always necessary, in the latter case [of a letter addressed generally to AB at a large town], to give some further evidence to shew that the letter did in fact come to the hands of the person for whom it was intended.’
Lord Abbott CJ
[1824] EngR 827, (1824) Ry and Mood 149, (1824) 171 ER 975 (A)
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood SC 25-Apr-2018
Notice of dismissal begins when received by worker
The court was asked: ‘If an employee is dismissed on written notice posted to his home address, when does the notice period begin to run? Is it when the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post? Or when it was in fact . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.327818

Braesch and Others v Commission (State Aid – Aid for The Precautionary Restructuring of Banca Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena – Judgment): ECFI 24 Feb 2021

Action for annulment – State aid – Aid for the precautionary restructuring of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena – Preliminary examination stage – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market – Plea of inadmissibility – Status as an interested party – Interest in bringing proceedings – Locus standi – Admissibility
T-161/18, [2021] EUECJ T-161/18, ECLI:EU:T:2021:102
Bailii
European

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.663974

Corporation of Sheffield v Barclay and Others: HL 3 Jul 1905

Lord Davey said: ‘I think that the appellants [Sheffield Corporation] have a statutory duty to register all valid transfers, and on the demand of the transferee to issue to him a fresh certificate of title to the stock comprised therein. But, of course, it is a breach of their duty and a wrong to the existing holders of stock for the appellants to remove their names and register the stock in the name of the proposed transferee if the latter has, in fact, no title to require the appellants to do so. I am further of opinion that where a person invested with a statutory or common law duty of a ministerial character is called upon to exercise that duty on the request, direction, or demand of another (it does not seem to me to matter which word you use), and without any default on his own part acts in a manner which is apparently legal but is, in fact, illegal and a breach of the duty, and thereby incurs liability to third parties, there is implied by law a contract by the person making the request to keep indemnified the person having the duty against any liability which may result from such exercise of the supposed duty. And it makes no difference that the person making the request is not aware of the invalidity in his title to make the request, or could not with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’ and as to Dugdale v Lovering: ‘I am also of opinion that the authority keeping a stock register has no duty of keeping the register correct which they owe to those who come with transfers. Their only duty (if that be the proper expression) is one which they owe to the stockholders who are on the register. This point was decided by all the learned Judges who took part in the decision of the first case of Simm -v- Anglo-American Telegraph [5 QBD 188]. I will content myself with quoting the language of Cotton L.J. [at 214] ‘The duty of the company is not to accept a forged transfer, and no duty to make inquiries exists towards the person bringing the transfer. It is merely an obligation upon the company to take care that they do not get into difficulties in consequence of their accepting a forged transfer, and it may be said to be an obligation towards the stockholder not to take the stock out of his name unless he has executed a transfer; but it is only a duty in this sense, that unless the company act upon a genuine transfer they may be liable to the real stockholder.’.’
Authorised irredeemable stock in Sheffield Corporation was registered in the joint names of Timbrell and Honnywill. Timbrell executed an appropriate form of transfer of the stock in his own name but forged the signature of Honnywill. The forged transfer was in favour of a bank, Barclay’s, as a lender. The bank sent the forged transfer to the Corporation for registration and the Corporation acted upon that request. The bank was thus given a stock certificate and, before or after that, the bank’s stock was sold on to holders for value to whom, the Bank having returned its certificate to the Corporation, the Corporation gave fresh stock certificates. Timbrell died and Honnywill then discovered the fraud and successfully insisted in proceedings that the stock of which he had been defrauded should be restored to him, as it was, at the Corporation’s expense. The Corporation then sued the bank for an indemnity. Had the Corporation any remedy against the bank which had asked it to act upon the forged transfer?
Held: The corporation was entitled to an indemnity from the bank. Adopting Dugdale -v- Lovering: ‘The principle insisted upon by Mr Cave in his argument quoted above has been undoubtedly sanctioned as part of the law by several old decisions, and I think the principle as enunciated is well-established.’
Where a person invested with a statutory or common law duty of a ministerial character is called upon to exercise that duty on the request, direction, or demand of another, and without any default on his own part acts in a manner which is apparently legal, but is in fact illegal and a breach of the duty, and thereby incurs liability to third parties, there is implied by law a contract by the person making the request to keep indemnified the person having the duty against any liability which may result from suet exercise of the supposed duty. And it makes no difference that the person making the request is not aware of the invalidity in his title to make the request. In an action by the corporation against C and Co, the latter were bound to indemnify the former. Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed.
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Davey and Robertson
[1905] AC 392, [1905] UKHL 556, 43 SLR 556
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Dugdale v Lovering 1875
The court adopted the position proposed by Mr Cave, for the Plaintiff: ‘It is a general principle of law when an act is done by one person at the request of another which act is not in itself manifestly tortious to the knowledge of the person doing . .

Cited by:
Cited – Cadbury Schweppes Plc and Another v Halifax Share Dealing Ltd and Another ChD 23-May-2006
Fraudsters had successfully contrived to sell shares of others, by re-registering the shares to new addresses and requesting new certificates. The question was which of the company, the company registrars and the stockbrokers should bear the loss. . .
Adopted – Stanley Yeung Kai Yung and another v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation PC 1980
The shareholder had had his share certificates stolen. The thief lodged forged transfers with stockbrokers, who in good faith sent the share certificates and transfer deeds to the bank for registration and transfer, which was done. The transferee . .
Cited – Downs and Another v Chappell and Another CA 3-Apr-1996
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.621182

Terry And Others v Parker: 20 Apr 1837

If the drawer of a bill of exchange have no effects in the hands of the drawee at the time of the drawing the bill, and of its maturity, and have no ground to expect that it will be paid, it is not necessary to present the bill at maturity ; and, if it be presented two days after, and payment be refused, the drawer is liable.
[1837] EngR 643, (1837) 6 Ad and E 502, (1837) 112 ER 192
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.313760

Morris and others v Rayners Enterprises Incorporated and Another: HL 30 Oct 1997

A deposit at a bank which had been given in charge to the bank to secure the liabilities of a third party was not a mutual arrangement, and therefore there no statutory set off applied, and the funds could be reclaimed.
Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton
Gazette 01-Apr-1998, Times 13-Nov-1997, [1997] UKHL 44, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep 48, [1998] 1 AC 214, [1998] 1 BCLC 68, [1997] BCC 965, [1998] BPIR 211, [1997] 4 All ER 568, [1997] 3 WLR 909
House of Lords, Bailii
Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925)
England and Wales

Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.158919

Khalifeh v Blom Bank SAL: QBD 4 Jun 2021

Application for an anti-suit injunction requiring the Defendant to discontinue proceedings issued in Lebanon and to be restrained from commencing or prosecuting any further such proceedings until further order.
Freedman J
[2021] EWHC 1502 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.663356

Barnett Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd and Another v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc: ChD 14 Aug 2015

Part 8 claim raising a point of construction arising out of a loan agreement.
Held: The unwinding costs of the swap transaction then before him (which was an internal bank swap) could not be added to the redemption cost.
Warren J
[2015] EWHC 2435 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Barnett-Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd and Others v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 12-Apr-2017
Second set of proceedings about a secured loan given to the claimants by the defendant bank. The bank, had discovered an external back to back swap (i.e. with an external counterparty), and asserted that it would be entitled to add the costs of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.551289

George Ochterlony v Archibald Hunter, Et Alii: HL 9 Apr 1745

Bill of Exchange –
Found that one who had retired bills in London, supra protest, for the honour of the drawer, (who was in Scotland,) was not debarred of his recourse against the drawer, although he did not give notice of the dishonour of the bills for eight days.
Found also that this was a sufficient notification of the dishonour of other bills, retired in the same way, although payable after the date of the letter
[1745] UKHL 1 – Paton – 396
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 17 June 2021; Ref: scu.557094

Greenhalgh v Alderne Cinemas Ltd: 1951

The issue was whether a special resolution has been passed bona fide for the benefit of the company.
Held: The phrase, ‘the company as a whole,’ does not (at any rate in such a case as the present) mean the company as a commercial entity as distinct from the corporators. It means the corporators as a general body. That is to say, you may take the case of an individual hypothetical member and ask whether what is proposed is, in the honest opinion of those who voted in its favour, for that person’s benefit.’
Sir Raymond Evershed MR
[1951] Ch 286
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Redwood Master Fund Ltd and Others v TD Bank Europe Ltd and Others ChD 11-Dec-2002
The claimants were a minority of a lending syndicate. A change to the terms of the syndication agreement had been proposed which they considered would prejudice them. Risks of the loan arrangement would be transferred to them.
Held: The change . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 June 2021; Ref: scu.181243

Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri: CA 21 May 2021

Application to enforce Dubai finding of personal liability for dishonoured company cheques – basic rule that a final and conclusive foreign judgment for a debt or definite sum of money given by a court of competent jurisdiction may be enforced by a claim in England, unless it is impeachable on grounds set out in later Rules. Rule 51 is: ‘A foreign judgment is impeachable on the ground that the enforcement or, as the case may be, recognition, would be contrary to public policy.’
Lord Justice Lewison
[2021] EWCA Civ 770
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 June 2021; Ref: scu.662662

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV): ComC 15 Aug 2019

Expedited hearing of a Part 8 claim brought by the Claimant, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd against Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV).
What is at issue is SMBCE’s entitlement to recover under a performance bond and a retention bond issued by EH.
Mr Justice Butcher
[2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 June 2021; Ref: scu.642091

Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and others: ComC 21 Jan 2009

References: [2009] EWHC 36 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See also – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others ComC 24-Apr-2008 (, [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm), Times 29-Apr-08, Gazette 08-May-05, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 625)
    The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the . .
  • See also – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and others ComC 8-Oct-2008 (, [2008] EWHC 2325 (Comm))
    The director sought a further judgment as to whether charges imposed by banks on a customer taking an unauthorised overdraft, and otherwise were unlawful penalties. . .

This case is cited by:

  • See Also – Abbey National Plc and others v The Office of Fair Trading CA 26-Feb-2009 (, [2009] EWCA Civ 116, Times 03-Mar-09, [2009] 2 CMLR 30, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 1097, [2009] 2 WLR 1286)
    The OFT had sought to enquire as to the fairness of the terms on which banks conducted their accounts with consumers, and in particular as to how they charged for unauthorised overdrafts. The banks denied that the OFT had jurisdiction, and now . .
  • See also – Office of Fair Trading (OFT) v Abbey National Plc and Others SC 25-Nov-2009 (, [2009] UKSC 6, Times 26-Nov-09, [2009] 3 WLR 1215)
    The banks appealed against a ruling that the OFT could investigate the fairness or otherwise of their systems for charging bank customers for non-agreed items as excessive relative to the services supplied. The banks said that regulation 6(2) could . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.293978