May 26, 2022

Volume XII, Number 146

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Banks’ Quincecare Duty in APP Fraud Cases Potentially Extended

In March the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court judgment and held that the application of Quincecare duty does not depend on the fact that the bank is instructed by an agent of the customer of the bank. In principle, the Quincecare duty could now arise where a non-corporate customer falls victim to an “authorised push payment” (APP) fraud.

APP fraud happens when fraudsters deceive someone to make a payment under false pretences to a bank account held by the fraudster. Importantly in the context of the Quincecare duty, in APP fraud cases it is the bank’s customer that has instructed the payment, having been duped. This type of fraud has been on the increase in recent years.

The Quincecare duty requires banks to show reasonable care and skill in executing customer orders.  This means that the banks must refrain from executing a payment order if they are “put on enquiry”, having had reasonable grounds to suspect that the order is an attempt to misappropriate funds.  The Quincecare duty has been the subject of increasing judicial consideration as novel forms of fraud proliferate. The duty had originally been considered a negative duty not to execute a particular payment instruction, following the decision in JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Federal Republic of Nigeria [2019]. The measures a bank should take will depend on the circumstances, and the bank may in some circumstances be required to undertake active steps to verify payment instructions.

In the most recent case the customer sought to hold her bank accountable for two payments totalling £700,000 she had made having been deceived by a third party in the UAE, who she thought was legitimate. The bank maintained that its Quincecare duty did not extend to a duty to protect her against the consequences of her own decisions to instruct payments having fallen victim to an APP fraud.  The High Court agreed, and struck out the customer’s claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against that strike out and reinstated the claim. In doing so, it decided that it was at least reasonably arguable that the Quincecare duty could apply in such a case. The question of whether it does in fact apply will now fall to be decided at trial in the High Court, taking into account the Court of Appeal’s ruling. But in the meantime this decision will force financial institutions to assess carefully whether they have effective systems to detect and prevent APP fraud, in the knowledge that they are at heightened risk of being liable to customer claims.

If you would like to read the full judgment please click here.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 125
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Partner

Chris Webber specializes in resolving financial services disputes and regulatory investigations. He represents clients including banks, broker dealers, corporate trustees, bondholders, issuers, mortgage servicers, borrowers, insolvency office-holders, regulatory bodies, investment funds, and individuals. He also acts for corporate clients in contractual, investment, and shareholder disputes.

+44 20 7655 1655
Maria Shorter, SquirePB, litigation attorney
Associate

Maria Shorter is a solicitor in the Litigation Practice Group which provides legal services to the major banks, receivables financing and asset based lending industry in the UK.

Maria’s particular expertise involves all aspects of debt recovery including debtor and guarantor litigations, issuing civil claims and large debt recovery collections. She also has worked on numerous enforcement proceedings involving instruments such as Charging Orders against property and land; third party debt orders; statutory demands; possession proceedings and seeking Orders for Sale...

44 20 7655 1064
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement