The claimant alleged that he had been defrauded and accused the appellant of involvement in the fraud. The Bank appealed against a finding that the claim against it was not time limited.
Held: The appeal failed. The action was by a beneficiary under a trust and had been brought in respect of a fraudulent breach of trust to which the trustee was party or privy. In such circumstances, an action would lie against not only the trustee but also any other person who dishonestly assisted him in the breach, and in either case, the six-year limitation period for which section 21(3) of the Limitation Act 1980 provided could be disapplied.
Judges:
Sir Andrew Morritt C, Black, Tomlinson LJJ
Citations:
[2012] EWCA Civ 415, [2012] 2 P and CR DG6, [2013] QB 499, [2012] CP Rep 28, [2012] WLR(D) 108, [2012] 3 All ER 579, [2012] WTLR 745, [2012] 3 WLR 1501
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 8-Apr-2011
The claimant had been defrauded by a customer of the defendant bank. He brought a claim against the bank, saying that they knew or ought to have known of the fraudster’s activities, and were liable. The Bank denied that the UK courts had . .
See Also – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria QBD 24-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted involvement by the defendant bank in a fraud perpetrated against him. Jurisdiction had already been admitted for one trust , and now the claimant sought to add two further claims.
Held: ‘None of the gateways to English . .
Cited by:
See Also – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 2-Jul-2013
The claimant appealed against an order dis-allowing service on it out of the jurisdiction.
Held: Dr Williams’ appeal in respect of the Nigerian law claim was allowed but rejected in respect of the trust claim and the contract claim. . .
See Also – Williams v Central Bank of Nigeria SC 19-Feb-2014
Bank not liable for fraud of customer
The appellant sought to make the bank liable for a fraud committed by the Bank’s customer, the appellant saying that the Bank knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The court was asked whether a party liable only as a dishonest assistant was a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Limitation
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.452436