Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Banking - From: 1993 To: 1993

This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.

 
Samuels Finance Group Plc v Beechmanor Ltd and others (1993) P&CR 282
1993
CA
Lloyd LJ
Contract, Banking
The court considered the situation where the contract supported by a guarantee had been varied. Lloyd LJ said: "One can perhaps imagine changes falling short of a novation which would yet be so fundamental that they could not properly be described as a variation at all. I will not attempt to say where the line is to be drawn." The variation in this case was comparatively minor and could well have been said to be within the "purview" of the original contract.
1 Citers



 
 National Westminster Bank plc v Skelton (Note); 1993 - [1993] 1 WLR 72
 
Ashley Guarantee plc v Zacaria [1993] 1 WLR 62
1993
CA
Nourse LJ
Banking, Negligence
In possession proceedings based on a mortgage debt, the mortgagee's right to possession of the mortgaged property will not be defeated by a cross-claim of the mortgagor in the absence of some contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Philips (Hong Kong) Ltd v The Attorney General of Hong Kong (1993) 61 BLR 49; [1993] UKPC 3; (1993) 9 Const LJ 202
9 Feb 1993
PC
Lord Woolf
Contract, Banking
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".
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
AEG (UK) Ltd v Lewis Gazette, 17 February 1993
17 Feb 1993
CA

Banking
A claim founded on a cheque from a third party which had been given without consideration may fail.


 
 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell Borough Council; ChD 23-Feb-1993 - Independent, 25 February 1993; Times, 23 February 1993; [1994] 4 All ER 890

 
 Polly Peck International Plc v Nadir and Others; CA 17-Mar-1993 - Independent, 31 March 1993; Unreported, 17 March 1993
 
Depositors' Protection Board v Dalia and Another Gazette, 16 June 1993; Independent, 18 May 1993; Times, 11 May 1993
11 May 1993
CA

Banking, Financial Services
The Board was liable to pay compensation claims from equitable assignees of depositors with a failed bank. They were not to be excluded from making claims.
Banking Act 1987 58(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
High Street Services Ltd and Others v BCCI SA; Impexband Ltd v Same Gazette, 02 June 1993
2 Jun 1993
CA

Banking
Guarantors could set off liabilities against deposit claims.


 
 National Westminster Bank Plc v Devon County Council, Devon County Council v Abbey National Plc; QBD 16-Jul-1993 - Independent, 25 August 1993; Times, 16 July 1993
 
Regina v Her Majesty's Treasury and Another, Ex Parte Centro-Com Sarl Times, 07 October 1993
7 Oct 1993
QBD

Banking
A policy was lawful re debits from Serbian accounts for UK exports.


 
 CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt and Another; HL 21-Oct-1993 - Gazette, 17 December 1993; Independent, 22 October 1993; Times, 22 October 1993; [1994] 1 AC 200; [1993] 3 WLR 802; [1993] 4 All ER 433; [1993] UKHL 7

 
 Barclays Bank Plc v O'Brien and Another; HL 21-Oct-1993 - Gazette, 17 December 1993; Times, 22 October 1993; Independent, 22 October 1993; [1993] 3 WLR 786; [1994] 1 AC 180; [1993] 4 All ER 417; [1993] UKHL 6
 
Continental Bank Na v Aeakos Compania Naviera Sa and Others Ind Summary, 13 December 1993; Times, 26 November 1993; [1994] 1 WLR 588
26 Nov 1993
CA
Steyn LJ
Litigation Practice, Banking, Jurisdiction
The Bank was entitled to an injunction in the UK, by virtue of the jurisdiction given in their agreement, even though it was not the UK court which was first seised of the matter. Steyn LJ said: ". . a claim for damages for breach of contract would be a relatively ineffective remedy. An injunction is the only effective remedy for the appellants' breach of contract. If the injunction is set aside, the appellants will persist in their breach of contract, and the bank's legal rights as enshrined in the jurisdiction agreements will prove to be valueless. Given the total absence of special countervailing factors, this is the paradigm case for the grant of an injunction . ."
Brussels Convention 1968 Art 17
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.