We are very pleased to be coming back to Birmingham in person, to hold a commercial disputes update. This time, we will be considering Quincecare and Philipp.
On 1st and 2nd February, the Supreme Court heard the case of Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc, an appeal against the decision that the duty owed by a bank not to execute its customer’s payment instructions when it is on inquiry that the instructions are fraudulent, which usually arises in cases of corporate bank customers and instructions given by errant directors, may extend to customers who are natural persons.
The panel, consisting of Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Hamblen, Lord Sales and Lord Leggatt heard argument as to whether the duty set out in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Limited [1992] 4 All ER 363, extends to an authorised push payment fraud, where the customer herself gave the payment instructions after she had been persuaded to do so by a fraudster who was misappropriating her funds. The case is the latest in a spate of decisions concerning the scope of the Quincecare duty.
In this seminar, Jeremy Richmond KC, Emily Saunderson and Simon Oakes will consider and debate where the boundaries of the Quincecare duty currently lie and, based on the hearing before the Supreme Court, seek to anticipate the fate of the appeal.
We hope you will join in our discussion!
