12/7/23
PHILIPP v BARCLAYS BANK UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25
A claim that a bank owed its customer a duty not to make payments which the customer had been induced to make by a fraudster (authorised push payment or APP fraud) was struck out. The duty recognised in Barclays Bank v Quincecare (1992) applies if an instruction is given by a customer’s agent, not by the customer personally. A bank is not required to consider the commercial wisdom of a transaction. It has a strict contractual duty to comply with its mandate unless to do so would be unlawful (eg by contravening money laundering regulation) or would dishonestly assist a breach of trust. If an instruction is given by a customer personally, a duty of care only exists if it is unclear or leaves the bank with a choice how to carry it out. It was not necessary to decide if a duty would exist if the bank knew facts which the customer did not, because here the customer knew the relevant facts. It was arguable that when the customer alerted the bank to the fraud, the bank should have tried to recall the payments sooner, so that part of the claim would be allowed to continue.