← All Authorities
Singapore duty of careprofessional negligencequincecare duty

Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG

[2011] 4 SLR 559
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2011
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A bank owes a duty of care to its customer in wealth management under the Spandeck two-stage test, requiring proximity and absence of negating policy considerations.

Key Principle

banker's duty of care to customer; Spandeck proximity; scope of duty in wealth management

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 Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Cr...