Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 is a judicial decision of High Court of Justice of England and Wales in relation to the banker-customer relationship, and in particular in connection with the bank's duties in relation to payment instructions from a customer's agent or purported agent which give rise, or ought to give rise, to a suspicion of fraud.[1][2]
Although the decision is cited most frequently in relation to the potential liability of a bank to their customer, in the case itself the bank was a claimant, and the customer and its guarantor were seeking to defend their own liability on the basis of the bank's breach of duty.
The decision attracted much comment, and the duty of banks outlined in the decision has come to be referred to as the Quincecare duty.[3][4]
Although the case was decided in February 1988, it was not subsequently reported in any of the major law reports until 1992, and even then it was reported solely in the All England Law Reports and none of the official law reports. However the significance of the case was recognised by the judiciary much earlier; shortly after the decision was handed down it was extensively cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (overturned by the House of Lords on other grounds).[1] However, it was criticised and effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25.[5]
Facts
The main facts of the case appear in the judgment. Barclays Bank agreed to lend £400,000 to Quincecare Ltd, a company formed specifically to purchase four chemists shops. The chairman of the company, Mr Harry Stiller, caused a sum of about £340,000 to be drawn down and to be misapplied for his dishonest purposes. Mr Stiller was later sentenced to four years' imprisonment, but almost the entire sum was lost. The bank then sued the company as principal debtor, and its guarantor (a company called UniChem). Both the principal debtor and the guarantor defended the claim, and put forward counterclaims. The central issues related to the question whether the bank acted in breach of duty towards either the principal debtor or the guarantor.
The trial judge, Steyn J summarised the principal issue as follows:
At the risk of oversimplifying, but in order to provide a framework for a sketch of the background, I record at once that the most substantial issue in the case is whether the bank, in executing the order to transfer the money, were put on inquiry that the chairman was acting for his own benefit or, in any event, for an unauthorised purpose.[6]
Decision
The decision of the court was given by Steyn J. Having identified the central issue from the outset, much of the decision was a detailed review of the evidence to consider to what extent the bank knew, or ought to have known, of the fraudulent designs of Quincecare's chairman. This included a review of the dealings of the bank with Mr Stiller, and also consideration of expert evidence of the usual customs and practices of bankers.
Although the company and its guarantor advanced a number of different defences, all of which were addressed in the judgment, the most important aspect of the judgment in terms of jurisprudence was the decision in relation to whether or not the bank was in breach of its duty to its customer by failing to be alive to possible fraud, and the test laid down by the court to be applied. The judgment briefly reviewed the principal authorities, being Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 1 WLR 1555 and Karak Rubber Co Ltd v Burden (No 2) [1972] 1 WLR 602, and the more recent first instance decision in Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 987 (subsequently appealed after the decision in Quincecare was handed down).
In an oft-cited passage, Steyn J held that:
The law should not impose too burdensome an obligation on bankers, which hampers the effective transacting of banking business unnecessarily. On the other hand, the law should guard against the facilitation of fraud, and exact a reasonable standard of care in order to combat fraud and to protect bank customers and innocent third parties. To hold that a bank is only liable when it has displayed a lack of probity would be much too restrictive an approach. On the other hand, to impose liability whenever speculation might suggest dishonesty would impose wholly impractical standards on bankers. In my judgment the sensible compromise, which strikes a fair balance between competing considerations, is simply to say that a banker must refrain from executing an order if and for as long as the banker is 'put on inquiry' in the sense that he has reasonable grounds (although not necessarily proof) for believing that the order is an attempt to misappropriate the funds of the company (see proposition (3) in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd (1986) [1992] 4 All ER 331 at 349, [1987] 1 WLR 987 at 1006). And, the external standard of the likely perception of an ordinary prudent banker is the governing one.[7](emphasis added)
He went on to stress that "trust, not distrust, is also the basis of a bank's dealings with its customers",[8] citing with approval similar comments from Bowen LJ in Sanders Bros v Maclean & Co (1883) 11 QBD 327 at 343.[9]
Accordingly, he dismissed the defences and counterclaims of the defendants and gave judgment for the bank in the amount of the loan, plus interest and costs.
Authority
Until 2023 the decision in Quincecare had been broadly accepted as authoritative ever since it was handed down. It was recognised as authoritative by leading academic texts.[2]
Despite the consternation the decision caused, since Quincecare was decided there has been only one judicial decision in the United Kingdom where a bank has been held to be liable for breaching the Quincecare duty.[10]
Philipp v Barclays Bank
Quincecare was considered in a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, in which Lord Leggatt explained that attempts to extend the so-called Quincecare duty to situations where the customer gives payment instructions directly, instead of via an agent, are misconceived. The bank's obligation is only to carry out its customer's instructions. "It is not for the bank to concern itself with the wisdom or risks of its customer's payment decisions."[11] Where payment instructions are received through an agent, then the bank has to follow the agent's instructions, unless the agent is attempting to defraud the customer, in which case the agent will have no actual authority to act. Even then, the agent will still have apparent authority, unless there are facts apparent to the bank which suggest dishonesty by the agent; only then will the bank have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in enquiring into whether the instructions have been given with its customer's authority. The court rejected the notion that Quincecare requires banks to protect customers from their own decisions when they have been tricked into sending money to a fraudster.[12]
↑ Bowen LJ's exact words were: "any one who attempts to follow and understand the law merchant will soon find himself lost if he begins by assuming that merchants conduct their business on the basis of attempting to insure themselves against fraudulent dealing. The contrary is the case. Credit, not distrust, is the basis of commercial dealings".
Sir William Aldous was an English judge and a judge in the Gibraltar Court of Appeal.
In trust law, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference. It is a type of implied trust.
Sydney William Templeman, Baron Templeman, MBE, PC was a British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1982 to 1995.
Re Spectrum Plus Ltd[2005] UKHL 41 was a UK company law decision of House of Lords that settled a number of outstanding legal issues relating to floating charges and recharacterisation risk under the English common law. However, the House of Lords also discussed the power of the court to make rulings as to the law that were "prospective only" to mitigate potential harshness when issuing a ruling that was different from what the law had previously been understood to be.
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and Others[2009] UKSC 6is a judicial decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court relating to bank charges in the United Kingdom, with reference to the situation where a bank account holder goes into unplanned overdraft.
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd[1988] UKHL 12 is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision.
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in English contract law, on undue influence. One of the three judges hearing the case, Lord Denning MR advanced the argument that under English law, all impairments of autonomy could be collected under a single principle of "inequality of bargaining power."
Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. This liability has expanded in recent years following the decision in Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd to better cover intentional torts, such as sexual assault and deceit. Historically, it was held that most intentional wrongdoings were not in the course of ordinary employment, but recent case law suggests that where an action is closely connected with an employee's duties, an employer can be found vicariously liable. The leading case is now the Supreme Court decision in Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, which emphasised the concept of "enterprise risk".
An employment contract in English law is a specific kind of contract whereby one person performs work under the direction of another. The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power. On this basis, statute, and to some extent the common law, requires that compulsory rights are enforceable against the employer.
Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.
Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns[1995] UKHL 10 is an English trusts law case, concerning the test for causation and the extent of compensation for breaches of trust.
Financial law is the law and regulation of the commercial banking, capital markets, insurance, derivatives and investment management sectors. Understanding financial law is crucial to appreciating the creation and formation of banking and financial regulation, as well as the legal framework for finance generally. Financial law forms a substantial portion of commercial law, and notably a substantial proportion of the global economy, and legal billables are dependent on sound and clear legal policy pertaining to financial transactions. Therefore financial law as the law for financial industries involves public and private law matters. Understanding the legal implications of transactions and structures such as an indemnity, or overdraft is crucial to appreciating their effect in financial transactions. This is the core of financial law. Thus, financial law draws a narrower distinction than commercial or corporate law by focusing primarily on financial transactions, the financial market, and its participants; for example, the sale of goods may be part of commercial law but is not financial law. Financial law may be understood as being formed of three overarching methods, or pillars of law formation and categorised into five transaction silos which form the various financial positions prevalent in finance.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.
Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677, [1979] 3 All ER 522 was a decision of the High Court of Justice relating to the recovery of a payment mistakenly made by a bank after the customer had countermanded the cheque.
Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd[1998] EWCA Civ 1853 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to the recovery of a payment made by a bank on the mistaken belief that the customer had sufficient cleared funds in the account.
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] 1 QB 654 is a decision of the High Court relating to the duty of care of a bank in relation to forged cheques with respect to persons other than their customer.
Sir Jonathan Frederic Parker, PC is a retired British Lord Justice of Appeal.
Re Nanwa Gold Mines Ltd [1955] 1 WLR 880 was a trust law decision relating to subscription monies for shares and what would subsequently come to be known as Quistclose trusts. The court held that where subscription monies had been paid over to enable the company to accomplish a specific purpose, if that purpose failed then the money was held on trust for the subscribers and did not form part of the assets of the company. Even though the decision was only a first-instance ex tempore decision, it has been repeatedly upheld, including by the House of Lords in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd[1968] UKHL 4
Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited[2019] UKSC 50 is a judicial decision of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the duties owed by a bank where a person acting on behalf of a corporate customer of the bank directs the bank to transfer money out of the company's account as part of a fraudulent scheme.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
