Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc
The Quincecare duty does not apply where a customer personally authorises a payment as a result of an authorised push payment fraud, because the bank's duty is to carry out the customer's instructions.
Facts
Mrs Philipp and her husband were deceived by a fraudster, who persuaded them that they were helping an investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the National Crime Agency, and that they needed to transfer their savings to safe accounts. Mrs Philipp went to her branch of Barclays and instructed the bank to transfer about 700,000 pounds to accounts in the United Arab Emirates, which were controlled by the fraudster. She sued the bank, arguing that it owed her a duty under the Quincecare principle not to carry out her instructions, because it should have realised that she was the victim of fraud.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the bank owed no such duty. Lord Leggatt said that the Quincecare duty is not a special duty but an application of the bank's general duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out the customer's instructions. It arises where the instruction is given by an agent of the customer, and the bank has reasonable grounds to believe that the agent is acting without authority, in an attempt to defraud the customer. Where the customer personally gives a clear and unambiguous instruction, the bank's duty is to carry it out, and it is not for the bank to concern itself with the wisdom of the customer's decision. Since 2024, payment service providers have been required to reimburse victims of authorised push payment fraud under a regulatory scheme.
Related cases on payments, mandates and the Quincecare duty
- Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1991] Ch 547
- Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] QB 677
- Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363
- Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548
- Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corp of Liberia (The Laconia) [1977] AC 850
- Momm v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1977] QB 790
- Royal Products Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 194
- Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50, [2020] AC 1189
Studying banking and finance law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
