Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110 is a judicial decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in relation to the fundamental nature of the legal relationship between banker and customer. Together with Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 it forms part of the foundational cases relating to English banking law and the nature of a bank's relationship with its customer in relation to the account.[1]
The point decided in the case was that a customer does not have a right of action against its bank for repayment of sums until the customer makes a demand (and accordingly, for the purposes of limitation periods, that time does not run until such a demand is made). However, the reason the decision is considered so important is for the influential comments made by way of obiter dictum by Atkin LJ in relation to the nature of the banker-customer relationship.[2]
The case is also cited as the leading authority for the proposition that a demand for repayment must be made at the branch of the bank where the account is kept; a position which appears increasingly anachronistic in modern banking.[3]
Facts
Siegfried Joachimson, Jacob Joachimson and L.E. Marckx jointly operated a business in Manchester as a partnership. L.E. Marckx was a naturalised British citizen, but the other two partners were German nationals. The firm opened and operated a bank account with the Swiss Bank Corporation.
No attempt was made to wind up the partnerships' affairs during World War I.
On 1 August 1914 Siegfried Joachimson died. Under English partnership law at the time,[4] this had the effect of dissolving the partnership. However three days later, on 4 August 1914, World War I broke out, and Jacob Joachimson returned to Germany. The firm's account with the bank was dormant for the duration of the war; the case report suggests that this might have been because of legal prohibitions relating to property of enemy aliens.[5] After the war, the English partner, L.E. Marckx, tried to wind up the affairs of the partnership, and sought repayment of the £2,312 held in the bank account from the bank. The bank refused to repay the sums in the account arguing that either (i) the firm had made no demand for repayment of the sums, and so they were not due; or in the alternative (ii) that if the right to repayment arose upon the death of Siegfried Joachimson, then it was now barred by the statute of limitation.[6]
The case report indicates that there was a great deal of procedural wrangling at first instance in relation to whether the claim could be brought by an individual partner or had to be brought in the name of the firm.
Decision
The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the claim was not statute barred. Until a customer demanded repayment from the bank, the debt was not due and payable, and thus limitation periods would not run. Bankes LJ held:[7]
It seems to me impossible to imagine the relation between banker and customer, as it exists today, without the stipulation that, if the customer seeks to withdraw his loan, he must make application to the banker for it...
(1921) 3 KB 110
The case is treated as important because of the fundamental principles which Atkin LJ set down in relation to the nature of the account. He said:[8]
The bank undertakes to receive money and to collect bills for its customer's account. The proceeds so received are not to be held in trust for the customer, but the bank borrows the proceeds and undertakes to repay them. The promise to repay is to repay at the branch of the bank where the account is kept, and during banking hours. It includes a promise to repay any part of the amount due against the written order of the customer addressed to the bank at the branch, and as such written orders may be outstanding in the ordinary course of business for two or three days, it is a term of the contract that the bank will not cease to do business with the customer except on reasonable notice. The customer on his part undertakes to exercise reasonable care in executing his written orders so as not to mislead the bank or facilitate forgery.
The decision was handed down at a time when banks were transforming from a service available only to the very wealthy to a more mainstream part of daily commerce. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law[1] suggests that, taken together with Foley v Hill, the case established six fundamental propositions:
For a current or savings account (as opposed to a fixed term deposit account), sums are only repayable upon demand.
The demand for repayment must be made at the branch of the bank where the account is kept unless there is a contrary agreement between the bank and the customer.
Even without a demand, the sums held on account become repayable immediately if the bank is wound up.
The limitation period on the debt runs from the time when the customer makes demand and is refused.
The nature of the relationship between the banker and customer is fundamentally one of debtor and creditor, but banks also provide other services to their customers which cannot be described in debtor-customer terms, such as the obligation of the bank to honour cheques and payment instructions, and to collect sums paid into the account by way of cheque.
The legal position in relation to the banker-customer is largely expressed as being constituted by implied terms, and accordingly, can be modified by express agreement.
Some care needs to be taken with the last proposition: much of English law at the time was expressed in terms of "implied agreements" and "quasi contract"; a position which academics have pointed out should be deprecated and recognised that the courts were simply laying down legal rules and not implied agreements.[9]
Tacking is a legal concept arising under the common law relating to competing priorities between two or more security interests arising over the same asset. The concept is best illustrated by way of example.
Bank A lends a first advance to the borrower, which is secured by a mortgage over the borrower's property. The mortgage is expressed to secure this advance and any future advances.
Bank B subsequently lends more money to the borrower and takes a second ranking mortgage over the same property.
Bank A then subsequently lends a second advance to the borrower, relying on its original mortgage.
Devaynes v Noble (1816) 35 ER 781, best known for the claim contained in Clayton's case, created a rule, or more precisely common law presumption, in relation to the distribution of money from a bank account. The rule is based upon the deceptively simple notion of first-in, first-out to determine the effect of payments from an account, and normally applies in English Law in the absence of evidence of any other intention. Payments are presumed to be appropriated to debts in the order in which the debts are incurred.
A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits from the public and creates a demand deposit while simultaneously making loans. Lending activities can be directly performed by the bank or indirectly through capital markets.
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.
United Kingdom banking law refers to banking law in the United Kingdom, to control the activities of banks.
Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal. It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts. It invokes the equitable maxim, "equity regards the substance and not the form."
A deposit account is a bank account maintained by a financial institution in which a customer can deposit and withdraw money. Deposit accounts can be savings accounts, current accounts or any of several other types of accounts explained below.
Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 214 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets and priority of creditors in a company winding up.
Oldham v Kyrris[2003] EWCA Civ 1506 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the administration procedure when a company is unable to repay its debts.
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.
Banque Belge pour L’Etranger v Hambrouck [1921] 1 KB 321 is an English trusts law case concerning the common law remedies for receipt of trust property.
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.
United Dominions Trust Ltd v Kirkwood [1966] 2 QB 431 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to what constitutes "banking business" as a matter of English law.
Smith v Lloyds TSB Group plc [2001] QB 541 was a decision of the Court of Appeal relating to the liability of a bank where it makes payment upon a fraudulently altered cheque. The case was a co-joined appeal from one High Court action and a County Court action.
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd [1972] AC 785 is a decision of the House of Lords in relation to a banker's right to combine accounts under English law. It is the leading English case and a banker's right to combine accounts, and also an important decision relating to insolvency set-off.
Under English law, a bank has a general right to combine accounts where a customer has multiple accounts with the same bank. The right has been recognised since at least 1860. However it was not until the 1975 House of Lords decision in National Westminster Bank Ltd v Halesowen Presswork & Assemblies Ltd [1972] AC 785 that it was finally determined that this was a type of set-off right rather than anything related to the banker's lien. Typically the right will be exercised where one account is overdrawn and the other is in credit so that the bank can secure full repayment of overdraft without the need to take any further action with respect to the customer. The broad rationale is that separate numbered accounts are set up for administrative convenience only, but the legal duty upon a bank to "account" to its customers for the sums held by it only extends to the net sum.
Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords in relation to the fundamental nature of a bank account. Together with Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110 it forms part of the foundational cases relating to English banking law and the nature of a bank's relationship with its customer in relation to the account.
Royal Trust Bank v National Westminster Bank plc [1996] BCC 613 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the nature of a floating charge.
Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 148 is a judicial decision of the English Court of Appeal. The decision related to a number of aspects relating to complex financing arrangement, but is most often cited for the decision in relation to recharacterisation.
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.
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.
