Where a cheque marked ‘a/c payee only’ had been stolen, and an English clearing bank collected it as agent for a foreign bank not acting for the payee, that bank was liable for the misrepresentation involved in the presentation. Where a bank asks its English agent for collection to collect English cheques crossed ‘a/c payee’ it is impliedly warranting that its customer is entitled to the proceeds. The court drew a distinction between an agent’s breach of duty as against his principal and an agent’s breach of duty to a third party. Where an agent for a collecting bank was negligent towards a third party payee, he would be indemnified by a collecting bank for any loss caused to a third party as a consequence of performing the collecting bank’s request. This was not so where the loss arose from the agent’s negligence in the actual performance of the collecting bank’s request.
Rix J: ‘When, however, the cheque emerges from that multitude and is referred by the clerical staff to management, albeit only as a result of an inquiry after fate, it seems to me that different considerations come into play. The cheque is no longer a mere item following a course in a factory-like process. It no longer becomes impracticable to give it individual attention, or the attention of management. It is referred for just such individual attention, even if the cause of referral is something collateral.’
Rix J
Times 08-Feb-1999, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 193
Cheques Act 1992
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Linklaters (A Firm) v HSBC Bank Plc and and Banco Popular Espanol ComC 22-May-2003
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 . .
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.
Banking, Agency
Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.89822