- Drawing the boundaries of the Quincecare duty in cases of fraud (Philipp v Barclays Bank)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Barclays Bank plc successfully applied for summary judgment against Mrs Philipp (the claimant) in respect of her claim that Barclays breached its so-called Quincecare duty in failing to prevent the fraudulent dissipation of £700,000 following an authorised push payment fraud, ie a fraud where the victim is induced by the fraudster to authorise a payment instruction to transfer funds to the fraudster. The High Court determined that the claimant’s claim had no real prospects of success since the claim was dependent upon an impermissible and unprincipled extension of the Quincecare duty to situations where a bank acts on a customer’s authorised payment instructions. The duty was held to be confined to situations where an agent of the customer sought to misappropriate funds as had been the case in previously decided cases such as Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd. Written by Darragh Connell, barrister at Forum Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial