Shorter Reads

Push Payment Fraud – Is there a duty on banks to retrieve lost funds?

A recent High Court decision has examined the responsibilities of banks to retrieve funds lost in authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud scams.

CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Santander UK Plc
(“CCP v Natwest and Santander”)

 

1 minute read

Published 4 June 2024

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Sectors
  • Financial services

A recent High Court decision has examined the responsibilities of banks to retrieve funds lost in authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud scams.

Readers will recall the 2023 case of Philipp v Barclays, in which the Supreme Court declined to extend the banks’ “Quincecare duty” to assist victims of APP fraud. The Supreme Court held that if a customer unambiguously authorises and directs their bank to execute a payment, then the “Quincecare duty” does not require the bank to prevent the payment if it is linked to APP fraud. But what happens after the payment has been made and do banks have a duty to retrieve lost funds?

In CCP v Natwest and Santander, the Claimant lost over £415,000 to APP fraudsters in 15 separate payments between September 13 and October 12, 2016. The payments were made from its Natwest account to a Santander account controlled by a criminal gang (despite the Claimant’s belief that the funds were being transferred for investments). The claimant flagged a fraud alert with Natwest around October 22, 2016, with Santander being notified the same day. However, only £14,000 of the Claimant’s funds were recovered.

The court held that any claim against Natwest based on a failure to prevent the payments would be statute barred, as the last payment occurred on October 12, 2016, and the claim was not filed until October 18, 2022. Even if not time-barred, the Court stated further that it would have struck out the claim following the Supreme Court’s decision in Philipp v Barclays.

The Claimant sought to amend its case to plead in the alternative that, even if the banks involved had no duty to prevent payments out, there is still a duty on banks to take reasonable steps to retrieve or recover the sums paid out as result of APP fraud. This was referred to as a “retrieval duty”.

The amendment was grounded in some evidence to suggest that NatWest had been alerted to the possibility of fraud after the transactions were completed. A fraud investigator from a third bank, Lloyds, had reached out to NatWest expressing concern around a particular Lloyds account, which had received large sums of money from the fraudster’s Santander account, originating from the Claimant’s Natwest account.

The Court held that there was at least a reasonable inference from the available facts that more could have been done by Natwest and Santander to retrieve the sums paid out. Although the Claimant’s amendment was not allowed as against Natwest due to limitation issues, the Court held that a claim against Santander based on the “retrieval duty” had in fact already been pleaded (with some deficiencies). Master Brown commented: “Whether or not it could be described as a developing area of law, there is to mind … some uncertainty as to whether any such duty lies on the bank of those who can be assumed to have perpetrated the fraud.” The Court, however, declined to summarily dismiss the claim against Santander based on the “retrieval duty”, leaving it open.

The ruling suggests a shift towards assessing banks’ efforts in retrieving funds in APP fraud cases, even though banks are not strictly under a duty to prevent fraudulent transactions. This leaves open the possibility of APP fraud victims bringing claims against their own banks, as well as the recipient banks, if evidence exists to show that more could have been done by either to retrieve their funds.

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Shorter Reads

Push Payment Fraud – Is there a duty on banks to retrieve lost funds?

A recent High Court decision has examined the responsibilities of banks to retrieve funds lost in authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud scams.

CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Santander UK Plc
(“CCP v Natwest and Santander”)

 

Published 4 June 2024

Associated sectors / services

  • Banking & financial disputes
  • Financial services

Authors

A recent High Court decision has examined the responsibilities of banks to retrieve funds lost in authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud scams.

Readers will recall the 2023 case of Philipp v Barclays, in which the Supreme Court declined to extend the banks’ “Quincecare duty” to assist victims of APP fraud. The Supreme Court held that if a customer unambiguously authorises and directs their bank to execute a payment, then the “Quincecare duty” does not require the bank to prevent the payment if it is linked to APP fraud. But what happens after the payment has been made and do banks have a duty to retrieve lost funds?

In CCP v Natwest and Santander, the Claimant lost over £415,000 to APP fraudsters in 15 separate payments between September 13 and October 12, 2016. The payments were made from its Natwest account to a Santander account controlled by a criminal gang (despite the Claimant’s belief that the funds were being transferred for investments). The claimant flagged a fraud alert with Natwest around October 22, 2016, with Santander being notified the same day. However, only £14,000 of the Claimant’s funds were recovered.

The court held that any claim against Natwest based on a failure to prevent the payments would be statute barred, as the last payment occurred on October 12, 2016, and the claim was not filed until October 18, 2022. Even if not time-barred, the Court stated further that it would have struck out the claim following the Supreme Court’s decision in Philipp v Barclays.

The Claimant sought to amend its case to plead in the alternative that, even if the banks involved had no duty to prevent payments out, there is still a duty on banks to take reasonable steps to retrieve or recover the sums paid out as result of APP fraud. This was referred to as a “retrieval duty”.

The amendment was grounded in some evidence to suggest that NatWest had been alerted to the possibility of fraud after the transactions were completed. A fraud investigator from a third bank, Lloyds, had reached out to NatWest expressing concern around a particular Lloyds account, which had received large sums of money from the fraudster’s Santander account, originating from the Claimant’s Natwest account.

The Court held that there was at least a reasonable inference from the available facts that more could have been done by Natwest and Santander to retrieve the sums paid out. Although the Claimant’s amendment was not allowed as against Natwest due to limitation issues, the Court held that a claim against Santander based on the “retrieval duty” had in fact already been pleaded (with some deficiencies). Master Brown commented: “Whether or not it could be described as a developing area of law, there is to mind … some uncertainty as to whether any such duty lies on the bank of those who can be assumed to have perpetrated the fraud.” The Court, however, declined to summarily dismiss the claim against Santander based on the “retrieval duty”, leaving it open.

The ruling suggests a shift towards assessing banks’ efforts in retrieving funds in APP fraud cases, even though banks are not strictly under a duty to prevent fraudulent transactions. This leaves open the possibility of APP fraud victims bringing claims against their own banks, as well as the recipient banks, if evidence exists to show that more could have been done by either to retrieve their funds.

Associated sectors / services

  • Banking & financial disputes
  • 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

    Read our latest article: Election 2024: Initial comments on potential tax changes

    Read our latest article: Labour wins UK general election: What changes are coming for employers?

    Read our latest article: Fired over Mouse Jiggling: the employment law risks of TikTok ‘work hacks’

    Read our latest article: Don’t Mention the Law: 2024 election manifestos and the absence of funding for the Courts & Legal Aid

    Read our latest article: ISSB Sustainability Reporting Standards and Certain Jurisdictional Observations

    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