The claimant company said that the bank had allowed money to be removed from its account without authority. Originally it said the second defendant, its former director had authrised the payments. On the second defendant denying this, the company withdrew its claim against him, and the bank started its own third party claim against him. The transactions had been undertaken on oral authorites given by telephone. Records showed that no telephone calls had been made on the relevant days, but an admitted call was not shown either.
Held: The evidence established that the second defendant knew more than he admitted. On the evidence the plaintiff’s claimagainst the bank failed.
Judges:
Peter Smith J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 2379 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rama Corporation Limited v Proved Tin and General Investment Limited QBD 1952
The court considered the doctrine of ostensible authority as regards the actions of a single director of a company, identifying three essential elements. . .
Cited – Morrell and Another v Workers Savings and Loan Bank (Jamaica) PC 18-Jan-2007
. .
Cited – HJ Symons v Barclays Bank Admn 2003
. .
Cited – Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Company
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.259921
