Shorter Reads

Supreme Court’s downplaying of the Quincecare duty does not mean banks are off the hook on customer fraud claims

Robin Henry, Head of Dispute Resolution at Collyer Bristow, comments on the Supreme Court decision in Philipp v Barclays [UKSC2023 25]

1 minute read

Published 21 July 2023

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Sectors
  • Financial services

Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Philipp v Barclays has refused to extend the “Quincecare” duty of banks to assist victims of authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud , the new picture which has emerged is not quite the unqualified victory for the banks that some of the early reactions have suggested.

The Court held that where the customer’s agent is trying to defraud the customer, this is not a breach of a special Quincecare duty at all but a situation where the agent as a matter of general principle has no authority to issue the instruction since it was for a fraudulent purpose. In that case the bank will be protected if it complies with the instruction only if the agent had apparent authority. However, if the bank is on notice that the agent does not have actual authority, it will be liable if it proceeds with the transaction unless it has made enquiries as to whether the agent did have authority. In this scenario the bank will be liable even if it cannot be proved that the loss would have been avoided following its enquiries.

In terms of APP fraud, the bank is under an obligation to comply with the customer’s instructions, subject to its duty to do so with a reasonable degree of skill and care. The Court declined to lay down general principles for what that might entail (as this was originally only an application to strike out), but it did say that the bank would at least have to have information (which was not known at the time to the customer) that a fraud was being committed and had then proceeded with the transaction nonetheless. In this case, the customer had been made aware of the likely fraud by the police and had still wanted to proceed. It was only later, when the police tipped off the bank, that the bank refused to make any more transfers. It was only at that point that the court thought the bank’s duty of care could arise.

On different facts, it may therefore still be possible that where banks do not act with reasonable care and skill, they will be liable to victims of APP fraud.

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

Supreme Court’s downplaying of the Quincecare duty does not mean banks are off the hook on customer fraud claims

Robin Henry, Head of Dispute Resolution at Collyer Bristow, comments on the Supreme Court decision in Philipp v Barclays [UKSC2023 25]

Published 21 July 2023

Associated sectors / services

  • Commercial disputes
  • Financial services
  • Financial services

Authors

Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Philipp v Barclays has refused to extend the “Quincecare” duty of banks to assist victims of authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud , the new picture which has emerged is not quite the unqualified victory for the banks that some of the early reactions have suggested.

The Court held that where the customer’s agent is trying to defraud the customer, this is not a breach of a special Quincecare duty at all but a situation where the agent as a matter of general principle has no authority to issue the instruction since it was for a fraudulent purpose. In that case the bank will be protected if it complies with the instruction only if the agent had apparent authority. However, if the bank is on notice that the agent does not have actual authority, it will be liable if it proceeds with the transaction unless it has made enquiries as to whether the agent did have authority. In this scenario the bank will be liable even if it cannot be proved that the loss would have been avoided following its enquiries.

In terms of APP fraud, the bank is under an obligation to comply with the customer’s instructions, subject to its duty to do so with a reasonable degree of skill and care. The Court declined to lay down general principles for what that might entail (as this was originally only an application to strike out), but it did say that the bank would at least have to have information (which was not known at the time to the customer) that a fraud was being committed and had then proceeded with the transaction nonetheless. In this case, the customer had been made aware of the likely fraud by the police and had still wanted to proceed. It was only later, when the police tipped off the bank, that the bank refused to make any more transfers. It was only at that point that the court thought the bank’s duty of care could arise.

On different facts, it may therefore still be possible that where banks do not act with reasonable care and skill, they will be liable to victims of APP fraud.

Associated sectors / services

  • Commercial disputes
  • Financial services
  • Financial services

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):



    Article contributor

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp (calling not available)

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up

    Find out about Business

    Find out about Dispute Resolution

    Find out about Individuals & Families

    Find out about Real Estate

    We are Collyer Bristow - The law firm for those that
    value individuality, creativity and collaboration.

    Legal & Pricing info Regulatory InformationAccessibilitySitemapPricing and service information

    Listen to our latest podcast: BHS Judgment #2 – Trading Misfeasance

    Listen to our latest podcast: BHS Judgment #1 – Wrongful trading

    Read our latest article: Sexual Harassment & the risk of relying on workplace ‘banter’ to defend a claim

    Listen to our latest podcast: No notice, no claim? (Drax v Scottish Power)

    Read our latest article: Election 2024: Domicile, Inheritance Tax, and change promised by the new Labour government

    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    < Back to menu

    I have an issue and need your help

    Scroll to see our A-Z list of expertise

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.



      Business Close
      Private Wealth Close
      Hot Topics Close