← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case quincecare duty

Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd

[2019] UKSC 50
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2019
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Bank owes Quincecare duty not to execute payment where it has reasonable grounds to suspect fraud; the company's directing mind and will is no defence for the bank.

Key Principle

A bank owes a Quincecare duty of care not to execute a payment instruction where it has reasonable grounds for believing the instruction is an attempt to defraud the company; a company's directing mind and will defence does not absolve the bank.

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 Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiw...