The bank was held to be negligent (depriving it of the protection of section 82) not to ask a customer though respectively introduced the name of his employer and in the case of a married woman the name of her husband’s employer. Whether a bank was negligent or not is to be decided subjectively from the standard of a reasonable man carrying on business of banking and endeavouring to do so in such manner as is calculated to protect itself and its customers against fraud.
Lord Wright said that a bank does not have ‘the duty of being amateur detectives’.
Lord Buckmaster said: ‘These rules and statements are not a legal measure of the liability of a bank. They may fall short, or they may exceed what the court may regard as their duty in a particular case, but they afford a very valuable criterion of obvious risks against which the bank thinks it is their duty to guard.’
Lord Buckmaster, Lord Warrington. Lord Wright
 AC 201,  All ER 105
England and Wales
Cited – Architects of Wine Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc CA 20-Mar-2007
The bank appealed summary judgement against it for conversion of cheques. The cheques had been obtained by a fraud.
Held: The court considered the question of neglience under section 4: ‘The section 4 qualified duty does not require an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.250555