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 debts of another without authority was allowed the benefit of the payment. To establish that, the bank would have to show that the act had been subsequently ratified, or that it had been made on his behalf. The mere absence of loss to the customer is insufficient.
‘ in the absence of authorisation or ratification by the company of the bank’s payment to the third party, the ‘mere fact’ that the bank’s payment enured to the benefit of the company does not establish an equity in favour of the bank against the company.’
Citations:
Times 24-Apr-2000, Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 127, [2000] QB 917, [2000] 4 All ER 473, [2000] 3 WLR 877
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Limited – 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 . .
Cited by:
See Also – Crantrave Ltd (In Liquidation) v Lloyd’s Bank Plc CA 2002
A payment made by a person without compulsion, intending to discharge another’s debt, will not discharge that debt unless he acted with that other’s authority or if that other subsequently ratifies the payment. . .
Cited – Earles v Barclays Bank plc Merc 8-Oct-2009
earles_barclaysQBD2009
The claimant had lost his claim against the bank, but resisted the amount of costs claimed.
Held: The trial had been of a simple factual dispute, and the bank had failed adequately to disclose electronically held material in its possession. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Banking, Equity
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79598
