(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,  HCA 83
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