Table of contents
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Article summary
Dispute Resolution analysis: The court refused an application for summary judgment/strike out brought by a payment services provider in representative proceedings commenced by individuals who had been the subject of a sophisticated fraud. The fraud was committed through a corporate body who held an account with the payment services provider. The payment services provider applied to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment on the basis that—(i) the claimants did not have standing to bring representative proceedings, and (ii) the causes of action advanced were not in any event sustainable. The court disagreed and found that it was at least realistically arguable that the claimants had standing to commence representative proceedings and that the payment services provider had paid out money in breach of mandate and/or in breach of the Quincecare duty of care. Written by Christopher Snell, barrister, at New Square Chambers.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial