← All Authorities
United Kingdom quincecare dutydishonest assistanceknowing receiptlimitation periods

Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank Plc

[2022] UKSC 34
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK Supreme Court
Year2022
StatusBinding authority

Summary

UK Supreme Court considered the scope of Quincecare duty, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, and limitation in claims against a bank for executing suspicious payment instructions.

Key Principle

Quincecare duty; bank's liability for executing suspicious payment instructions; dishonest assistance; knowing receipt; limitation

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 Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank Plc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Stanford International Bank Lt...