← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case quincecare duty

Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc

[2023] UKSC 25
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Quincecare duty does not extend to authorised push payment fraud where the customer personally gives the payment instruction, even if deceived by a third party.

Key Principle

The Quincecare duty does not extend to authorised push payment fraud where the customer themselves gives the payment instruction, even if deceived by a third party; the bank's duty is to execute the customer's instruction.

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 Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc