← All Authorities
Hong Kong Leading Case professional negligencequincecare dutyimplied terms

Chang Pui Yin v Bank of Singapore Ltd

(2017) 20 HKCFAR 116
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A private bank does not owe an advisory duty of care beyond its contractual obligations to a sophisticated investor absent assumption of responsibility.

Key Principle

bank's advisory duty; private banking; sophisticated investor; whether bank owed duty beyond contractual terms

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Chang Pui Yin v Bank of Singapore Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Chang Pui Yin v Bank of Singap...