← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case duty of carepure economic loss

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc

[2006] UKHL 28
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK House of Lords
Year2006
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A bank notified of a freezing order owes no duty of care in negligence to the creditor who obtained it, as there is no assumption of responsibility.

Key Principle

assumption of responsibility; freezing order; bank notified of freezing order has no duty of care to creditor

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Customs and Excise Commissione...