← All Authorities
Hong Kong quincecare dutyprofessional negligence

Keen Lloyd Energy Ltd v Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd

(2015) 18 HKCFAR 46
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2015
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A bank owes a duty of care in the negligent performance of payment instructions, applying Quincecare-type principles in HK.

Key Principle

banker's duty of care; negligent performance of payment instructions

Area of Law

Tort and Negligence

Related Cases

Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1

Costs of raising a healthy child born following negligent sterilisation advice are recoverable as damages in a wrongful birth claim.

Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562

HCA held that a general neighbourhood principle cannot determine duty of care; coherence of the law acts as a constraining factor in novel duty situations.

Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180

High Court of Australia established a multi-factor approach to pure economic loss, considering vulnerability, assumption of responsibility, and control in determining duty of care.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Keen Lloyd Energy Ltd v Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Keen Lloyd Energy Ltd v Bank o...