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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 38 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.

 
Lloyds Bank plc v Voller [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 978
2002


Banking

1 Citers


 
Alliance and Leicester Plc v Godolphin [2002] EWCA Civ 12
15 Jan 2002
CA

Banking
The defendant claimed that payments made by him to his lenders should have been apportioned between different accounts rather than allocated to one loan account putting it in credit and allowing penalties to arise on others.
[ Bailii ]
 
Kuwait Oil Tanker Company S A K Sitka Shipping Incorporated v UBS Ag [2002] EWCA Civ 34
25 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Peter Gibson, Lord Justice Laws, And, Lord Justice Longmore,
Banking, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, International
Officers of the claimant had been found to have defrauded the plaintiff of many millions of pounds. Money had been paid through the defendant, a Swiss bank, and a garnishee order was sought. There was no presumption that, merely because a debt was a foreign debt, garnishee relief should be refused. The real issue was any possibility of double jeopardy, not whether the order of an English court would be recognised. Swiss law debarred disclosure of any of the details suggested, and payment under a garnishee order would not discharge the bank's debt to its client. The debt constituted by a bank account is located in whatever country the account is kept. Nevertheless the order was being sought to be enforced in England, and the Swiss courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction. The case was remitted to the divisional court to consider the issue of double jeopardy.
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1988 Art 16(5) - Civil Procedure Rules 50.1
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Kerr v Nationwide Building Society [2002] EWCA Civ 116
1 Feb 2002
CA
Rix LJ
Consumer, Banking

[ Bailii ]

 
 National Westminster Bank Plc v Amin and Another; HL 28-Feb-2002 - [2002] UKHL 9; [2002] 1 FLR 735; [2002] NPC 33; [2002] 2 P & CR DG3
 
Woolwich Plc v Chauhan [2002] EWCA Civ 324
1 Mar 2002
CA

Banking
Application for leave to apeal - method of calculation of redemption charge
[ Bailii ]
 
Whale and others v Viasystems Technograph Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 480
27 Mar 2002
CA

Company, Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Emerald Meats (London) Ltd v AIB Group (UK) Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 460
12 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Pill
Banking
The claimant appealed a finding that it had not been overcharged interest by the respondent. The account was overdrawn. They claimed that on each occasion when a cheque was paid into the account, the bank had charged a day's extra interest before crediting it. The bank would receive value for the cheque on one day, but adjust the balance for interest purposes only on the day after. The facility letter did not set out a right to do this. Held: The customer had impliedly agreed to the bank's standard terms including as to the date on which credits would affect the balance. Those terms were negotiable and applied unless they were unreasonable or "extortionate or contrary to all approved banking practice".
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
McGinn v Grangewood Securities Ltd Times, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 522; [2003] CCLR 11
23 Apr 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Clarke and Lady Justice Hale
Banking, Consumer
The lender used part of the loan to repay a small amount of arrears of the claimant on another loan. The part so used was not part of the objective of the loan, but one of the costs of obtaining it. Held: The deduction was properly part of the true cost of the credit, and so was not part of the credit. As a consequence, the consumer loan, and the charge securing it, were void and unenforceable. The purpose of section 127(3), which may work harshly against a creditor, is to ensure that the amount of credit is correctly stated.
Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980 No 51) 4(2) - Consumer Credit Act 1974 9(4) 127(3)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Manx Electricity Authority v J P Morgan Chase Bank [2002] EWHC 867 (Commercial)
14 May 2002
ComC

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (UK) Ltd and Another v HSBC Bank Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 691
16 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Judge
Banking
Construction of security bonds.
[ Bailii ]
 
Standard Bank London Ltd v Canara Bank [2002] EWHC 1032 (Commercial)
22 May 2002
ComC

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Adshead v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 823
23 May 2002
CA

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Frost v James Finlay Bank Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 667
23 May 2002
CA

Banking, Professional Negligence
The claimant sought damages from the respondent bank for negligence in the arrangements to loan money to her for the development of property. The loan was completed despite the absence of confirmation of insurance. The development was halted when structural damage was found. The borrowings spiraled out of control. She alleged that the bank had failed to disclose the defects discovered. Had the bank taken on a duty in advising her to change insurers, and thus assuming the duties of a broker, which it then failed. The bank appealed. Held: The claim of a duty of care was not properly pleaded, nor supported in evidence. The appeal must be allowed.
[ Bailii ]

 
 Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Clarke (Liquidator of Socimer International Bank Limited) and Chase Manhattan Bank Luxembourg S A; PC 29-May-2002 - Appeal No 41 of 2001; [2002] UKPC 27; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 992
 
Three Rivers District Council and others v Bank of England [2002] EWHC 1118 (Commercial)
31 May 2002
ComC

Torts - Other, Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Coutts and Co Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 943
17 Jun 2002
CA
Lords Justice Simon Brown and Peter Gibson and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Insolvency, Banking, Civil Procedure Rules
The respondent bank had obtained a charging order nisi against the applicant's property. The applicant then obtained an order under s252 of the act requiring any further action against his estate to be stayed. The bank nevertheless obtained an order absolute. The claimant was not represented at that hearing. Several years later he sought to set aside the order. At first instance the judge said that the court retained a discretion, and ex debito justiciae, the order should stand. The claimant appealed. Held: The statute did not allow for any such discretion. Rule 3.2 allowed discretion in cases of procedural error, but this was statutory. The order absolute remained valid until set aside, but the right to have it set aside was equally absolute. The nisi order was a temporary order made complete on order absolute. It was therefore a continuing action within the section. The order absolute was therefore void, and since the order nisi was conditional upon it, that fell away also.
Insolvency Act 1986 252(2) - Civil Procedure Rules 3.2
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Marsh [2002] EWCA Civ 948
25 Jun 2002
CA

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Hinchcliffe v HSBC Plc and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1165
5 Jul 2002
CA

Banking, Litigation Practice

[ Bailii ]
 
Bank of Scotland v Hill and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1081
11 Jul 2002
CA

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Holdgate and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1222
11 Jul 2002
CA

Banking
Independent advice on executing charge
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Habib Bank Ltd v Dawood [2002] EWCA Civ 1293
16 Jul 2002
CA

Banking

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sirius International Insurance Co (Publ) v FAI General Insurance Ltd Times, 26 August 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1611 (Ch);; [2003] 1 WLR 87
23 Jul 2002
ChD
Jacob J
Banking
The beneficiary sought to claim under a letter of credit. The bank resisted saying that the conditions in a letter accompanying the letter of credit had not been satisfied. Held: The conditions set out in the letter of credit were satisfied and the letter of credit had been properly drawn down. The principal of autonomy applied to prevent a bank refusing a draw down under the letter for any breach as between itself and the beneficiary, but there is an exception where the beneficiary had made a specific agreement not to draw down until certain conditions were met. As to the side letter: " . . . [Counsel for FAI] submitted that FAI had never agreed that Sirius should pay a claim. [Counsel for Sirius] says that FAI in effect did so by clause 1 of the Tomlin schedule. By that clause FAI acknowledged an indebtedness of US$22.5m to Sirius. Everyone knew that there was a back-to-back arrangement in place, that the US$22.5m would inure for Agnew's benefit. So in substance, submitted [counsel for Sirius], FAI agreed to payment by Sirius. They knew exactly who was really getting the benefit of clause 1 of the settlement agreement. I think that is right. No one ever thought that the right to the US$22.5m was really that of Sirius. The commercial substance is that FAI had agreed that Sirius should pay a claim."
1 Citers


 
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Bannerman Johnstone Maclay (a Firm) and Others Times, 01 August 2002
23 Jul 2002
OHCS
Lord Macfadyen
Scotland, Banking, Professional Negligence
The defenders, a firm of chartered accountants, prepared accounts for a customer of the pursuer bank. The bank claimed damages for negligence having relied upon the accounts. The auditors relied upon the case of Galoo. Held: It was not necessary for the accounts to have been prepared specifically for the bank, no separate evidence of such an intention was required. Galoo did not refer to the present case where the auditors expressly knew that the bank would be relying on the accounts in making lending decisions. It had been open to the defenders, if they had wished to disclaim any responsibility beyond the statutory duties fulfilled. The auditors had to satisfy themselves that the company could continue, and that required them to test the readiness of the bank to continue its lending, and accordingly also the bank's reliance upon the audited accounts.
1 Cites

[ ScotC ]
 
Connecticut Bank of Commerce v Republic of Congo [2002] 309 F3d 240
29 Aug 2002

Emilio M Garza
International, Banking
(United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit) Connecticut Bank had acquired the rights to a valid London judgment against the Congo for defaulting on a loan agreement. It obtained a default judgment in New York in relation to the London judgment debt. The Bank then sought to attach various debts owed by a group of Texas oil companies to the Congo. The debts constituted various royalty obligations by the oil companies for activities connected with the exploration for and the sale of the Congo's oil. Held: The debts due from the oil companies were not "property . . used for a commercial activity" within the meaning of section 1610(a). Judge Garza, for the majority said: "The phrase 'used for' on its face denotes something different and more specific than the phrases 'integral to' or 'necessary to'. It also denotes something distinct (and narrower) than the other phrases the Bank uses in its petition, such as 'related to' or 'contemplated by.'"
Judge Garza said: "What matters under the statute is what the property is 'used for', not how it was generated or produced. If property in the United States is used for a commercial purpose here, that property is subject to attachment and execution even if it was purchased with tax revenues or some other noncommercial source of government income. Conversely, even if a foreign state's property has been generated by commercial activity in the United States, that property is not thereby subject to execution or attachment if it is not 'used for' a commercial activity within our borders. The district court (and the litigants) have focused on the question of whether the Congo's joint venture with the garnishees, which gave rise to the royalty and tax obligations that the Bank want to garnish, was a 'commercial activity in the United States'. This was the wrong question to consider. What matters under the statute is not how the Congo made its money, but how it spends it. The amenability of these royalties and taxes to garnishment depends on what they are 'used for', not on how they were raised."
He added: "The phrase 'used for' in section 1610(a) is not a mere syntactical infelicity that permits courts to look beyond the 'use' of property, and instead try to find any kind of nexus or connection to a commercial activity in the United States. The statute means what it says: property of a foreign sovereign…may be executed against only if it is 'used for' a commercial activity. That the property is revenue from or otherwise generated by commercial activity in the United States does not thereby render the property amenable to execution.
. . To use property for a commercial activity, within the ordinary meaning of 'use', would be to put the property in the service of the commercial activity, to carry out the activity by means of the property. Here, the royalty obligations in question represent the revenue, the income, from an allegedly commercial activity. In ordinary usage, we would not say that the revenue from a transaction is 'used for' that transaction."
He referred to the Act, noting the distinction in the Act between the jurisdictional immunity in section 3(1), which provides that a state is not immune as respects proceedings "relating to" a commercial transaction and section 13(4), which, as he put it, makes explicit that the mere relationship to a commercial activity does not suffice to permit execution, the property must "for the time being" be "in use or intended for use for a commercial purpose". He concluded that the Act parallels the FSIA on the footing that: "it allows jurisdiction based on mere relationship to a commercial activity, but very clearly permits execution only depending on the 'use' of the property."
1 Citers

[ Worldlii ]
 
National Bank of Egypt International Ltd v Oman Housing Bank Saoc [2002] EWHC 1760 (Comm)
27 Sep 2002
ComC

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds TSB Bank v Holdgate [2002] EWCA Civ 1543
14 Oct 2002
CA

Banking

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v National Westminster Bank plc Times, 02 December 2002; Gazette, 12 December 2002
18 Oct 2002
ChD
Rich, J
Banking
The claimant made a refund of VAT by payment into their bank account by mistake. The creditor had requested that it not be so repaid. The claimant had made a second refund direct, and now sought return of the payment from the bank. Held: The money was to be repaid. It was unsolicited, and did not amount to a payment of the debt unless accepted. The debtor could not force a particular method of payment on the creditor, and nor was the creditor obliged to accept a particular form of payment. There is no general rule that a bank has authority to receive money on behalf of is customer to give discharge to a debt. The money was paid by mistake, did not discharge the debt and was repayable.

 
Cook and Another v National Westminster Bank Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1556
21 Oct 2002
CA
Chadwick LJ
Banking, Consumer

[ Bailii ]
 
Lloyds Bank Plc and others v Cassidy [2002] EWCA Civ 1606
8 Nov 2002
CA
Mance LJ
Insolvency, Banking

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Household Mortgage Corporation plc v Whitehead and Another Times, 29 November 2002; Gazette, 30 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1657; [2003] 1 WLR 1173; [2003] 2 FCR 369; [2003] 1 All ER 319; [2003] 6 BPIR 1482; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 263
14 Nov 2002
CA
Chadwick, Sedley, Scott-Baker LJJ
Insolvency, Banking
The mortgage lender had proved in the voluntary arrangement as an unsecured creditor. It had valued the security as less than the debt, and accepted a dividend on the portion remaining unsecured. It now sought to enforce the security. It was argued that it had compromised its entire claim. Held: The lender had compromised its claim for that part of the debt which was unsecured, but that did not affect its ability to claim the rest under the security. The rules made provision for this, for bankruptcy but did not apply directly to a voluntary arrangement. However the court should be slow to create different conditions for arrangements. Absent an express term in an IVA, the court should be slow to imply a term that, by participating in and accepting payment of a dividend, a secured creditor had agreed to treat part of his debt as unsecured.
Insolvency Rules 1986 (1986 No 1925) Part 6 Chapter 9
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Komercni Banka, A S v Stone and Rolls Ltd and Another [2002] EWHC 2263 (Comm); [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 383
15 Nov 2002
ComC
Toulson J
Banking, Torts - Other
Toulson J discussed a set off against a claim for damages: "The question whether an alleged benefit should or should not be taken into account cannot be determined by mere application of the "but for" test. Where the wrongful conduct consists of causing the victim to enter into a venture or transaction which he would not otherwise have entered into, and the wrongdoer alleges that the victim has received a subsequent benefit which he would not have received but for entering into the venture or transaction, it seems to me that the question to be asked is whether the receipt of the benefit was not merely a result of the venture or transaction, in a historical sense, but was part of the complex of obligations and benefits intrinsic, ie belonging naturally, to the venture or transaction. Otherwise, it is hard to know where to draw the line."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Altman v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2002] EWHC 2488 (Comm)
25 Nov 2002
ComC

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Bale v HSBC Bank Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1866
2 Dec 2002
CA

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Mortgage Express v Pickup and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 1876
2 Dec 2002
CA

Land, Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Redwood Master Fund Ltd and Others v TD Bank Europe Ltd and Others Times, 30 January 2003
11 Dec 2002
ChD
Rimer J
Financial Services, Banking
The claimants were a minority of a lending syndicate. A change to the terms of the syndication agreement had been proposed which they considered would prejudice them. Risks of the loan arrangement would be transferred to them. Held: The change should proceed. It was necessary before any change was made that it should be demonstrated to be in the interests of the syndicate as a whole, not just the majority, but that did not mean it had to be for the benefit of each individual lender. Here there was nothing to suggest that the agents had acted in bad faith. All classes under the agreement had agreed to submit to the majority decision. Good faith was the starting point, and the overall agreement would be in the long term interes?s of the syndicate by reducing the borrowings.
1 Cites


 
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Hayward [2002] EWCA Civ 1813
12 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker The President Lord Justice Thorpe
Banking
The parties disputed, inter alia, what had been agreed at a meeting. A note, prepared after the meeting, was claimed to record it. The judge had declined to make a finding in relation to the date when a note had been written, saying only that, since he regarded the date when, and the circumstances in which, it came to be made as wholly uncertain, the note was of no help to him in deciding what had been agreed at the meeting. Held: The court remitted the case for rehearing. The judge was in error. He should have made a finding. Jonathan Parker LJ: the judge should have tackled the issue of the note "head on" and have made a finding about it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commission v Germany C-209/00 [2002] EUECJ C-209/00
12 Dec 2002
ECJ

Banking
ECJ Judgment - Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Measure implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for the bank Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (WestLB) - Merger of the Wohnungsbauforderungsanstalt des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (WfA) with WestLB - Resulting increase in own funds of WestLB - Remuneration of the Land as sole shareholder in WfA - Commission Decision 2000/392/EC - Obligation to recover the illegal State aid - Failure to implement
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.