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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 27 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.

 
P and O Nedlloyd B vDampskibsselskabet Af, 1912, Aktieselskab, Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg v Utaniko Limited, East West Corporation Times, 13 February 2003; [2003] QB 1509; [2003] EWCA Civ 83; [2003] 1 Lloyd's Rep 239; [2003] 1 CLC 797; [2003] 2 All ER 700; [2003] 3 WLR 916; [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 524
12 Feb 2003
CA
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Mance
Transport, Agency, Banking
The claimants shipped goods to Chile through the defendant shipping line. The goods were lost. The shippers rights of suit under the contract of carriage had been transferred to a third party. Held: The shippers as the bank's principals couldn't be the holders of the bills endorsed to the banks, and the rights of suit were transferred with them. Nevertheless, the bailment to the shipping line continued, and the shippers rights as bailor continued. The defendants were in breach of their duties as bailees.
Mance LJ said: "The duties of a bailee arise out of the voluntary assumption of possession of another's goods"
Carriage of Goods at Sea Act 1992 5(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Nomura International Plc v Credit Suisse First Boston International; ComC 13-Feb-2003 - [2003] EWHC 160 (Comm)
 
Papamichael v National Westminster Bank Plc [2003] EWHC 164 (Comm)
14 Feb 2003
ComC

Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
Den Norske Bank Asa v Acemex Management Company Ltd [2003] EWHC 326 (Comm)
26 Feb 2003
ComC

Banking

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Chater v Mortgage Agency Services Number Two Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 490
3 Apr 2003
CA

Land, Banking
The plaintiff mortgagee had had his warrant for possession executed. He now appealed against an order re-instating the mortgagor to possession. Held: The wife had been unaware of the charge, and had not been made party to the proceedings. Nevertheless, the judgment was properly obtained, and the judge had no power to re-instate the claimant. Appeal allowed.
Administration of Justice Act 1970 36(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kensington International Ltd v Republic of The Congo [2003] EWHC 2331 (Comm)
16 Apr 2003
ComC

Banking

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc [2003] EWHC 834 (Ch)
16 Apr 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Banking, Professional Negligence, Litigation Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Fielding Gazette, 03 July 2003; Times, 16 May 2003; [2003] EWHC 986 (Ch)
2 May 2003
ChD
Mr Justice Hart
Banking
The claimant challenged being held liable for substantial borrowings made by her husband on their joint account. She originally agreed a limit of £200,000, but the bank agreed to vary this with the husband to over 3 million pounds. She had signed a joint mandate. Held: The wife had not known the full extent of the borrowings. It could not be inferred that an abuse of confidence had taken place. If the bank were authorised by the joint mandate to grant an implied request for a loan (tacit sole borrowing), then meeting an express request (sole facility borrowing) would also be authorised.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo [2003] EWCA Civ 709
13 May 2003
CA
Waller LJ, Kay LJ
Banking
The claimant had obtained judgment against the defendant for US$60m, and had sought a Mareva injunction against the defendant republic's assets and against the assets of companies through which it operated in the UK. The claimant now appealed against the refusal of the court to hear their application ex parte. Held: The appeal failed: "This is not the original creditor pursuing his debtor immediately on the failure to pay. This is an old debt assigned, where difficulties with enforcement were well understood and had been well understood for many years and where, as the history demonstrated, the Congo had been taking the steps which I have previously described; in some cases, as I understand the judgment of Tomlinson J, with the approval of certain of the bank creditors who were parties to the original loan agreements", and as an appellate court it could not fault the decision of the judge on the material before him.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ian Wight Michael Pilling Michael W Mackey v Eckhardt Marine GmbH [2003] UKPC 37; Times, 06 June 2003; [2004] 1 AC 147
14 May 2003
PC
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nolan, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Commonwealth, Banking, Jurisdiction, Insolvency
(Cayman Islands) An international bank went into liquidation in the Cayman Islands, with liabilities in Bangladesh. A new bank was created in Bangladesh, and the applicants sought to make the new bank liable, and through them the liquidators. Held: The insolvency discharged the debts and the claimants had no case. The intention had been to isolate and preserve the Bangladeshi debts against the liquidation. The winding up order had had no effect on the respondent's debt, its situs or its proper law. It had been provable even though the lex situs and proper law were both in Bangladesh.
Lord Hoffmann said: "The winding up leaves the debts of the creditors untouched. It only effects the way in which they can be enforced. When the order is made, ordinary proceedings against the company are stayed . . The creditors are confined to a collective enforcement procedure that results in pari passu distribution of the company's assets. The winding up does not either create new substantive rights in the creditors or destroy the old ones. Their debts, if they are owing, remain debts throughout. They are discharged by the winding up only to the extent that they are paid out of dividends. But when the process of distribution is complete, there are no further assets against which they can be enforced. There is no equivalent of the discharge of a personal bankrupt which extinguishes his debt."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
Owo-Samson v Barclays Bank Plc, Boyden [2003] EWCA Civ 714; Times, 27 May 2003; Gazette, 17 July 2003
21 May 2003
CA
Ward, Carnwath LJJ, Newman J
Banking, Insolvency
The appellant challenged a formal statutory demand which had led to his bankruptcy. The demand had included the anticipated cost of realising the charged property, and also had been inflated to allow for extra costs of dealing the appellant who was perceived to be recalcitrant and unco-operative. Held: The statutory demand could only include sums due at that time to the bank, and had been included wrongly. Similarly it was inappropriate to try to include speculative costs. At later stages, such contingent liabilities might properly be allowed for (but still excluding addition costs associated with the character of the bankrupt). The court had a discretion as to whether to allow cross examination.
Insolvency Rules 1986 - Insolvency Act 1986
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Linklaters (A Firm) v HSBC Bank Plc and and Banco Popular Espanol [2003] ESHC 1113 (Comm); Gazette, 03 July 2003
22 May 2003
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Gross
Banking
A stolen cheque was endorsed in blank, and paid through an account opened for that purpose. It had been crossed 'A/C PAYEE ONLY' The cheques was paid in, and the money authorised for payment by HSBC. The banks had to apportion responsibility. The paying bank (HSBC) sought to apply Middle Temple, making the collecting bank (BPE) entirely responsible. Held: HSBC was entitled to the indemnity sought from the collecting bank. HSBC was entitled to an indemnity or damages for breach of warranty as a matter of law, irrespective of whether either HSBC or BPE acted "without negligence" for the purpose of s.4 of the 1957 Act or s.80 of 1882 Act.
Bills of Exchange Act 1882 80 - Cheques Act 1957 4
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and others v UBS AG, Qabazard [2003] UKHL 31; Times, 13 June 2003; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] 3 All ER 501; [2004] 1 AC 300; [2003] ILPr 45; [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 101; [2003] 1 CLC 1206; [2003] 3 WLR 14
12 Jun 2003
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett
Jurisdiction, Banking
Mr Qabazard conspired with others to defraud the Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Sitka Shipping Inc of large sums of money. On 16 November 1998 Moore-Bick J gave judgment against him for over US$130m. Historically sums had been placed with the defendant, and garnishee orders were sought. Held: It is not correct to characterise the garnishee or third party debt order as a claim in personam made against the third party in England. It is enforcement of the judgment in rem against the debt, which in this case was situated in Switzerland. The garnishee order was discharged.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 3A
1 Cites

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
AIC Ltd v Federal Government of Nigeria [2003] EWHC 1357 (QB)
13 Jun 2003
QBD
Stanley Burnton J
Banking, Jurisdiction
The court was asked: "i. whether a judgment against a State may be registered under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and enforced in this country; and
ii. whether moneys in a bank account of a central bank that is a separate legal entity, belonging beneficially to the government of its state, are liable to execution if those moneys are used or intended for use for commercial purposes." Held: Stanley Burnton J noted after referring to Alcom, that evidence of recent use of an account wholly for commercial purposes over a significant period of time may lead to the conclusion that the account is used or intended for use wholly for commercial purposes; but the older the use in evidence, the weaker the inference that may be drawn as to the use or intended use of the account. The focus is throughout on actual use. There was evidence that the relevant bank account had been dormant and said that, if an account was dormant for at least 18 months, it cannot be said to be presently used for any relevant purpose, and that the previous use was weak evidence of a present intention as to its use. The evidence was insufficient to disprove the statement in the Certificate.
Administration of Justice Act 1920 9
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
AIC Limited v The Federal Government of Nigeria, the Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria [2003] EWHC 1357 (QB)
13 Jun 2003
QBD
Stanley Burnton J
Jurisdiction, Banking, International
AIC had used the 1920 Act to register a judgment obtained in Nigeria against the Nigerian Government. The underlying matter was a commercial transaction. Nigeria applied to set the registration aside, saying that registration was an adjudicative act and that Nigeria was protected by state immunity by reason of section 1 of the 1978 Act. AIC argued that their application to register the judgment was a "proceeding relating to a commercial transaction" within section 3(1)(a). Held: The submissions was rejected: "In my judgment, the proceedings resulting from an application to register a judgment under the 1920 Act relate not to the transaction or transactions underlying the original judgment but to that judgment. The issues in such proceedings are concerned essentially with the question whether the original judgment was regular or not."
Section 9 of the 1978 Act excludes immunity "as respects proceedings . . which relate to [an] arbitration" where the state has entered into a written arbitration agreement. Since most arbitrations relate to commercial transactions, section 9 would be unnecessary if a claim in respect of an arbitration constituted a "proceeding relating to the commercial transaction" to which the arbitration related, for that would fall within 3(1)(a). It would also be illogical to exempt from immunity the enforcement of a judgment in relation to a commercial transaction, but not the enforcement of a judgment in relation to any of the other matters in respect of which the 1978 Act provided exceptions to immunity under sections 3 to 11 of the Act.
It was unsurprising that the defendants were immune from proceedings for the registration of the Nigerian judgment: "the underlying principle of the State Immunity Act is that a state is not immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom if it enters into commercial transactions or undertakes certain activities having some connection with this jurisdiction. Purely domestic activities of a foreign state are not the subject of any exception to immunity. Sections 3(1)(b), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 all contain territorial qualifications to the exceptions to immunity to which they relate. Section 3(1)(a) does not include any such qualification, but even there the claimant wishing to bring proceedings must establish a basis for jurisdiction under CPR Part 6.20, normally under paragraphs (5) or (6), relating to contractual claims."
Lord Denning MR when advancing the restrictive doctrine of state immunity in Rahimtoola v Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] AC 379, 422, in Thai-Europe Tapioca Service Ltd v Government of Pakistan, Directorate of Agricultural Supplies [1975] 1 WLR 1485, 1491 and in Trendtex Trading v Bank of Nigeria [1977] 1 QB 529, 558 had emphasised the significance not merely of the fact that the proceedings related to a commercial transaction, but that the transaction was connected with the United Kingdom.
Administration of Justice Act 1920 9
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mahonia Ltd v JP Morgan Chase Bank [2003] EWHC 1927 (Comm); [2003] 2 Lloyds Rep 911
30 Jul 2003
ComC
Colman J
Banking
Enforceability of documentary credits - strike out of defence refused.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Citibank N A v Rafidian Bank, Rasheed Bank [2003] EWHC 1950 (QB)
31 Jul 2003
QBD
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Banking

[ Bailii ]
 
DP Mann and others v Coutts and Co [2003] EWHC 2138 (Comm)
16 Sep 2003
ComC
The Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Banking, Professional Negligence
The claimants were involved in litigation, They took certain steps on the understanding that the respondents had had deposited with them substantial sums in accounts under binding authorities. The bank had written a letter upon which they claim they had relied. Held: The letter could not be taken as a representation that the bank would hold any particular sum, and the bank could not expect it to be used as a representation that it would. The claimants had had reason to enquire as to whether the account was in fact being conducted in the way required, and had not done so. Claim Dismissed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Manx Electricity Authority v J P Morgan Chase Bank [2003] EWCA Civ 1324
3 Oct 2003
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Rix
Banking
The claimant sought to appeal an order striking out its claim against the defendant under a performance bond. The defendant denied that the demand was valid, saying it did not allege a current breach of the contract. Held: The point upon which the strike out action succeeded was flawed. The breach continued, and the obligations continued despite repudiation of the contract guaranteed. The points required to be determined after full argument, and the strike out was set aside.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Silven Properties Ltd and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and Others [2003] EWCA Civ 1409; [2004] 4 All ER 484; [2004] 1 WLR 997
21 Oct 2003
CA
Aldous LJ, Tuckey LJ, Lightman J
Banking, Negligence
The claimants complained that the receivers appointed by the bank had failed to get the best price for properties charged to the bank and sold, in that they had failed to obtain planning permissions which would have increased the values of the properties. Held. The court was being asked "whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor leads to the assumption by receivers who accept such appointment of responsibilities and duties which differ from those owed by the mortgagees, and it is important that any doubt in this regard should be resolved in the interests of mortgagees, mortgagors and receivers."
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Niru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 1446; [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 193; Gazette, 20 September 2003; [2004] QB 985
23 Oct 2003
CA
Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Sedley The President
Banking, Equity
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had been loaded, but they had not. Held: An inspector certifying the goods should know what was expected, and in this case it was to confirm that the goods had been laden. SGS was in breach of its duty to check that they were laden. The judge was correct to find that default causative of the loss. The judge was entitled to reach the conclusion which he did on deceit. The defence of change of position to a claim for restitution was not lost only where the defendant was dishonest or had otherwise behaved wrongfully. Where a recipient of money knew it was as a result of a mistake of factor of law it would be unconscionable not to order its return. The judge was entitled to find that the bank was not acting in good faith when it paid on the money it had received without further inquiry.
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Den Norske Bank Asa v Acemex Management Company Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1559
7 Nov 2003
CA
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Jacob
Banking
Money had been loaned for the purchase of three ships,and mortgages over the ships had been given given. The borrowers were in default, and the lender sought to arrest the vessels. The defendant argued that the way the arrest had been undertaken caused additional losses. Held: The Bank's actions constituted a breach of the obligation to allow the mortgagor to enter into and perform engagements for the employment of the vessel and such breach amounted to an arguable defence to the claim. The Bank were, however entitled to take the view that releasing the vessel from arrest and permitting her to travel with her cargo on board was fraught with risk, and the defendants had no prospect of establishing at trial that the Bank owed a duty of care to the defendants in deciding when to arrest the vessel or in deciding whether to release the vessel from arrest. Appeal dismissed.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Owo-Sampson v Barclays Bank Plc and Another (No 2) [2003] EWHC 2900 (Ch); [2004] BPIR 303
10 Nov 2003
ChD
Howarth HHJ
Banking, Land

[ Bailii ]

 
 Commerzbank Ag v Price-Jones; CA 21-Nov-2003 - Times, 26 November 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1663
 
Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boorenleenbank Binding Authority [2003] EWHC 2913 (Comm)
2 Dec 2003
ComC
Andrew Smith J
Banking, Contract

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1755
10 Dec 2003
CA
Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Thorpe
Banking

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Patel and Another v Bank of India [2003] EWHC 3053 (Comm)
17 Dec 2003
ComC

Banking

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