← All Authorities
Singapore banker customer dutyconcurrent liabilitywealth management

Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG

[2011] 4 SLR 559; [2011] SGCA 39
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2011
StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

A bank owes its customer an implied contractual duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out its part of the banking transaction, and a concurrent and co-extensive tortious duty of care of the same scope arises (analysed under the two-stage Spandeck test) absent contrary policy considerations, the precise content of the duty being shaped by the particular services the bank has undertaken to provide.

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] 1 SLR 1130
MAN Diesel & Turbo SE v IM Skaugen SE [2019] SGCA 80

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...