Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

619324

Financial Law
15PFMC058-A14/15
Dr. Richard Alexander
Assignment 1
Word Count Including Footnotes, Excluding Title Page and
Bibliography: 3999

To discuss a banks deposit-taking business in complete isolation is a complex


task. The financial crisis reinforced the extent to which the expansion in banking

activities has left any attempted classification inadequate. 1 This universal model
of banking has begun to change, as increasingly tough regulation and capital
requirements make the costs of maintaining a global, universal bank untenable 2.
Nonetheless, deposit accounts continue to represent a major portion of a retail
banks business, with over 90% of the United Kingdoms adult population
[maintaining] a bank account. 3 As the proportion of UK citizens with an account
has increased so has the belief that [f]rom a customers view, maintaining a
bank account is an essential form of social inclusion, 4 as participation in banking
has increased so has retail customers exposure to shocks in other areas of
banking.
The core business of banking has traditionally encompassed deposit-taking and
lending5 and the question of what the duties owed by a deposit-taking bank is
discussed and whether they are appropriate in the 21 st century follows.
The sources of these duties are varied. Following the Financial Crisis of 2007 and
its aftermath new regulations and regulators were created but the general theme
within the UK banking sector has been to ward off the threat of greater
regulatory control of banking activities, especially in the retail

1 A. Anora, Banking Law (1st, Pearson, Harlow 2014) 10


2 (The universal banking model is dead. Anthony Jenkins, Barclays Chief
Executive) M. Arnold Barclays Antony Jenkins calls end of universal banking
Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef588b42-860a-11e4-b24800144feabdc0.html#axzz3MHMCQgzZ Accessed 18 December 2014
3 E. Ellinger, E. Lomnicka, C. Hare, Ellingers Modern Banking Law (5th, OUP,
Oxford, 2011) 115
4 Supra fn. 1, 6
5 H. Beale, Chitty on Contracts (31st, Sweet and Maxwell, 2012) 34-215

sector.6Nonetheless, some remain to be mandated in statute, but the vast


majority of others, for that reason arise from common law. The soft-law sources
such as banking-industry handbooks 7 are the industrys attempts to stave off
strict regulation and tend to support pre-existing duties rather than enumerate
new ones.
Following the Financial Services Act 2012 (FSA 2012) two new regulators, the
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority
(PRA) were created to oversee the financial services industry. The PRA deals
with the prudential regulation of deposit-taking institutions and took over the
work of the Financial Services Authority. The Banking Conduct Regime begun on
1 November 2009 and comprises: the Principles for Businesses, the Payment
Services Regulations (PSRs) and the Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook
(BCOBS)8. These have been designed to work in tandem with the existing
legislation applicable to deposit-taking institutions.
There is a difficulty in isolating a bank and characterising it based on set
activities; the terms bank, banker and banking cannot be uniformly
defined for all purposes.9 Nonetheless the Financial Services and Markets Act
2000 (FSMA 2000) refers to core activities a concept that has been a part of
the nomenclature since the first attempts to categorise and define banking

6 A. Burrows, English Private Law (3rd, OUP, Oxford 2013) 14-05


7 The Banking Code replaced by the Lending Code and The Business Banking
Code
8 http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/banking/Conduct-regime
9 Supra fn.6, 14.08

arose. Deposit-taking10 falls within this and is defined within the Regulated
Activities Order11:
(1) Accepting deposits is a specified kind of activity if
(a) money received by way of deposit is lent to others; or
(b) any other activity of the person accepting the deposit
is financed wholly, or to a material extent, out of the
capital of or interest on money received by way of
deposit.12
This activity is restricted to being in the course of business 13 and within the
United Kingdom.
In order to determine to whom a bank owes duties, it is necessary to ascertain
who its customers are. From this duties will be either be implied, such as with the
Sale of Goods and Services Act s.13, or will arise as a consequence of the
contract to provide banking services. Further there may also be equitable duties,
depending on the nature of the transactions between the bank and customer.
This contract, or mandate, has become ever more detailed as banking has
developed and it is from this that the bulk of the duties owed by the bank arise.
Ellinger states that there is no comprehensive statutory definition of the term

10 s. 5 FSMA
11 FSMA 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544) Part II
12 Ibid. s.5(1)
13 SCF Finance Co. Ltd v Masri (No 2) [1987] QB 1007

customer14 but the common law authorities remain useful. If a person, bona
fide, opens an account in their own name 15 with a bank or has one opened for
them16, then they will become a customer of the bank it must be noted though
that the mere fact an account has been opened in someones name does not
make them a customer, it must have been bona fide or with good authority for
this relationship to arise.17 The agreement will generally be an account mandate
that is signed, according to modern practice 18 when the customer opens an
account.19 This mandate will contain express provisions governing most
eventualities and duties relating to the account (other duties may be implied).
The customer will be protected from contracting away their rights in this
mandate if they are deemed to be unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms
Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and the Unfair Terms in Contract Regulations 1999
(UCTRs 1999).
Despite arising from a model of goldsmith-bailors who protected items left on
bailment,20 the modern relationship between the bank and its customer is more
similar to that of agent-principal, based on their agreement. It has been
characterised as that of creditor and debtor. 21 When depositing money into an
account, the depositor does not expect the precise bills to be returned, as stated
14 Supra fn.3, 115
15 Lacave & Co v Crdit Lyonnais [1887] 1 QB 148
16 Ladbroke & Co v Todd (1914) 30 TLR
17 Rowlandson v National Westminster Bank Ltd [1978] 1 WLR
18 Supra fn.6, 14.17
19 Supra fn.5, 34-257
20 Supra fn.3, 119

by Lord Atkin [a] deposit of money is not confined to a bailment of specific


currency to be returned in specie.22The customer accepts that the bank will take
the money and use it to generate profits elsewhere, with the full amount being
made available to the depositor on demand. As these other activities involve
risk, the account will generally generate interest on the amounts deposited. In
the past there were fixed conditions relating to this agreement to repay, in
Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation23 it was noted that [t]he promise to repay
at the branch of the bank where the account is kept, and during banking hours. 24
This would have been appropriate for the early twentieth century but it is
restrictive in a modern banking environment, where customers have access to
twenty-four hour ATM services and internet banking. This example highlights the
potential for disparity between duties arising from older banking case law and
the modern needs of customers.
The relationship between a banker and customer is growing ever more imprecise
because bankers perform different services for their customers and the nature of
the relationship between the parties may vary from transaction to transaction. 25
Nonetheless deposit-taking remains a core activity 26 needing regulation and
giving rise to unique duties. These are: the duty to collect instruments, duty to

21 Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 supra fn.5, 34-257


22 Akbar Khan v Attar Singh [1936] All ER 545 (PC), 548
23 [1921] 3 KB 110
24 Ibid, 127
25 Supra fn.5, 34 257
26 Supra fn.11

render an account, duty of confidentiality and the concurrent duty to exercise


reasonable care and skill arising in contract and tort.
The duty to collect instruments is a manifestation of the duty to conform to the
customers mandate, and can be reformulated as: to act as expeditiously as
possible in relation to the instruments.27 This will be to process payment through
normal channels and credit the customers account, as was the case in
Joachimson.. In determining the scope of the duty, the question of what is a
reasonable amount of time must be explored. In Marzetti v Williams28 it was
determined that 4 hours after after presenting a cheque at the holding branch for
the appropriate amount to be credited to a customers account was too long. If
the payment is an instrument such as a cheque, which needs to be cleared, then
the bank will accordingly be allowed more time; a term will be implied to the
effect that cheques are to be collected within a reasonable time; 29 the
reasonableness of time taken will be determined in line with industry standards
of banking. In Hare v Henty;30 a reasonable time for presenting an instrument to
be cleared was said to be the day it was presented or the following day.
Cheques give rise to further duties: the bank collecting on behalf of its customer
must notify the customer, without delay, if the cheque is dishonoured. 31 Further,
there may be problems relating to ownership of the cheque, which may conflict

27 Supra fn.1, 251


28 (1830) 1 B & Ad 415
29 Supra fn.6, 14.68
30 Hare v Henty (1861) 19 CBNS 65
31 Supra fn.3, 715

with the banks duty to its customer on collecting. There may be statutory relief
32

from liability, if they can prove action without negligence.

An integral33 part of a banks relationship with its customer is the duty that it will
provide an up to date record of any transactions and a balance. Traditionally
passbooks or paper statements were the primary means of accounting for the
level of credit attached to a customers account but computerisation has led to
their replacement by up to date snapshots of an account whether on the
internet or via ATM machines. It can now be said that as a result [b]anking is
now no longer the exclusive realm in which customers and bank employees meet
face to face in order to check an account or make a transfer. It is also no longer
possible to think in terms of paper based payment instructions and settlement
processes.34 The weight of an accurate reflection of an accounts balance was
recognised by Abbott CJ in Skyring v Greenwood and Cox: [i]t is of great
importance to any man [] Every prudent man accommodates his mode of living
to what he supposes to be his income. 35
The duty to provide up to date information on the status of the account is
problematic because at law, the statement of an account balance is not
conclusive evidence of the state of the account; it is merely prima facie. 36 This
leaves the scenario envisaged by Abbott CJ as a possibility the customer could
act in accordance with the information available. The law is inconclusive on this
32 Cheques Act 1957 s.4(1)
33 Supra fn.1, 252
34 A. Azzouni Internet Banking and the Law J.I.B.L.R. 2003, 18(9), 351-362
35 (1925) 4 B & C 281, 289
36 Supra fn.1, 253

point. In Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd 37 banks sought to
shield themselves from liability relating to incorrect statements and the onus was
placed upon the customer to check their statement and report to the bank any
inconsistencies any failure to do so would absolve the bank of liability. It was
held in Tai Hing that the terms were too loosely worded to have the effect the
banks wished. Nonetheless, Anora supports 38 the position in Arrow Transfer Co
Ltd. V Royal Bank of Canada,39 in which a verification of account clause on the
customer was upheld. This is a welcome approach since the greater access to
account details via technology brings with it a greater onus on the customer
subject to any clause being reasonable under UCTA 1977 and UCTRs 1999.
The duty of confidentiality arises from the fact that that a banks relationship
with its customer comprises elements of an agency relationship. 40 The Court of
Appeal decision in Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England 41 is
generally taken as the starting-point of the history of the bankers duty of
confidentiality.42 The Jack Report considered whether, as in some jurisdictions, 43
this duty should be codified. Currently it remains outside the ambit of legislation
37 [1986] AC 80
38 Supra fn.1, 258
39 (1972) 27 DLR (3d.) 81
40 Supra fn.1, 171
41 [1924] 1 KB 461
42 Banking Services: Law and Practice, Report by the Review Committee,
London, 1989, Cm. 622 (Jack Report), 5.01
43 Switzerland and Singapore both have express statutory protections of
confidentiality, reflecting the nature of the banking industries in their respective
jurisdictions.

and is implied into the contract. Banks themselves reinforce this concept within
the Lending Code: [p]ersonal information will be treated as private and
confidential, and subscribers will provide secure and reliable banking and
payment systems.44 The duty was elucidated further in Parry Jones v Law
Society.45 The banker-customer relationship was compared to other agency
relationships such as solicitor and client, doctor and patient and accountant and
customer. However, the bankers duty is qualified and four exceptions were set
out in Tournier:
(a) where disclosure is under compulsion of law; (b) where there is a duty to the
public to disclose; (c) where the interests of the bank require disclosure; (d)
where the disclosure is made by the express or implied consent of the
customer.46
Diplock LJ in Parry expounded the first qualification [s]uch a duty of confidence
is subject to, and overridden by, the duty of any party to that contract to comply
with the law of the land.47 The impact of the law of the land has grown and
[r]ecent years have seen significant inroads to the duty of confidentiality as a
result of statutory and judicial intervention. 48 Disclosure forms an important part
of the civil and criminal procedure and there are, according to Anora 49, over 21
statutory provisions in existence currently that override confidentiality. She
44 Lending Code (October 2014), 7
45 [1969] 1 Ch. 1, 9
46 Supra fn.41, 473
47 Supra fn.45, 9
48 Supra fn.1, 263
49 Ibid

10

submits that this situation has so eroded [the duty of confidentiality] that the
obligation now is to make disclosure and [it] only exists as an exception. 50 This
qualification will also, in certain circumstances, apply to foreign laws and
represents the most significant inroad into the bankers duty of confidentiality.
The second qualification, that a bank may breach the provision of confidentiality
if the information released is in the interest of the public, is largely obsolete as
there are a number of statutes relating to the myriad situations when this
exception might have been relevant in the past. 51 It has been labelled the most
difficult52 qualification and attempts having been made to abolish it. The third
qualification is when disclosure is in the banks interest and the fourth represents
a consensual release of information that the customer has already approved.
The duty of care owed by a banker to its customer arises from both common law
and the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA 1982). The duty to
exercise reasonable care and skill is an implied contractual term in any contract
for the provision of services53 and this same duty may also arise in tort.54This
permits the customer two potential routes of redress: they can take advantage of
differences in limitation periods, remoteness of damage and contributory
negligence55 to help any action they may bring. There are scenarios where the
50 Ibid
51 P. Latimer, Bank secrecy in Australia: terrorism legislation as the new exception to
the Tournier rule, Journal of Money Laundering Control, (2004) (8) 1, 56-65

52 A. Malek, J. Odgers, Pagets Law of Banking (14th, Butterworths Lexis Nexis,


London 2013)
53 S.13 SGSA 1983
54 Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, HL
55 Supra fn.3, 154

11

basis of liability may be larger in tort than in contract 56 but as shown in Tai Hing,
courts will not impose a duty in tort that is inconsistent with the terms of the
contract.57
The standard of service that a banker will be held to was elucidated by UngoedThomas J, in Selangor United Rubber Estates v Cradock (No 3): [t]he standard of
reasonable care and skill is an objective standard applicable to bankers. 58 Lipkin
Gorman v Karpnale & Co59 reinforced this and went further: engaging in ordinary
types of banking transaction or providing everyday banking or account services
to customer [] will not usually involve a bank in a breach of its duty of care to
those customers.60 This protects a bank that carries out its activities bona fides.
Todays banking customer inhabits a complex, fast-paced, technology-driven
environment61 and is not the customer of a decade ago. 62 As a result they will
have different expectations in the level of service that their bank will provide.
Following the financial systems heart-attack 63 in 2007, there was a reaction
56 Holt v Payne Skillington and De Groot Collis (1995) 77 BLR 51
57 Supra fn.1, 283
58 [1968] 1 WLR 1555, 1608
59 [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (CA)
60 Supra fn.3, 158
61 Deloitte Looking ahead top trends in retail banking 2014
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/insights-andissues/ca-en-insights-issues-looking-ahead.pdf Accessed 19 December 2014, [3]
62 Ibid
63 C. Goodhart, The Regulatory Response to the Financial Crisis (1st, Edward
Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham 2009), 1

12

against the banking and financial systems and a move towards regulation that
would protect depositors from the riskier elements of banking activity. Schemes
such as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme were expanded to cover
more of a depositors money in response to the collapse of institutions such as
Northern Rock. Technological advances continue apace and new innovations are
constantly applied as banks strive to keep up with customers needs. These
changes will impact the duties owed by a deposit-taking bank in the 21 st century.
Turning first to the duty of care owed by a bank to its customer, due to the
flexible nature of the standard of care an objective test determined by the
reasonable conduct of the day this will continue to remain appropriate. As the
needs or practices change, the standard can be reformulated.
Many banks are embracing new payment technology which means the collection
of instruments is becoming faster and easier to process. The rush to use
technologies such as near-field communication and digital wallets 64 is paving the
way for a new era of collecting on behalf of customers. It is estimated that
consumers will be making up to 195 billion mobile payments each year by
2019.65Modern technology has changed the standard expected of banks in
collecting instruments and this means that an immediate credit to the
customers account would not be unreasonable. 66 The modernisation of clearing
systems presents a difficulty in deciding when funds should become available to
be drawn upon by the customer. There is authority in Capital and Counties Bank
64 K. Flinders Two-thirds of banks prioritise payment technology modernisation
(Computerweekly.com 2014)
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240235939/Two-thirds-of-banksprioritise-payment-technology-modernisation accessed 19 December 2014
65 Ibid
66 Supra fn.1, 251

13

Ltd v Gordon67 for banks to present customers with funds before the instrument
has cleared. As clearing systems become ever faster through automation this
practice will presumably become more common. The question remains with
regard to instruments such as cheques, which must be cleared, as to whether
immediate recognition of a transfer will be possible and what the legal position of
such clearances should be. The immediate creation of funds on receipt of money
transfers is understandable but the position regarding of cheques remains
difficult. The Payments Council has announced that cheque-usage will end by 31
October 2018 and therefore it will not present a problem after that date. Prior to
that, it has been proposed that payment 68 of an instrument by electronic means
is acceptable and therefore the sending of a photograph of a cheque will now be
possible.69. This is a welcome move but it remains to be seen whether or not it
will be a viable option. Further, the acceptance of pictorial Internet evidence may
impose greater duties on banks in relation to fraudulent instruments.
By 2018, 214 million people in Europe will bank using mobile devices 70 and
together with the growth of online payments and 24-hour transactions, this will
result in a greater onus on banks to provide accurate account information.
Nonetheless the duty to furnish accurate accounts, as formulated in Tai Hing,
remains appropriate. Due to the customers ability to inspect the balance of an
account for free at any time of the day, it is submitted that it would not be
unreasonable to impose, in the customers mandate, a duty to make-known any
67 [1903] AC 249
68 s.89A Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill 2014
69 T. Edmonds, Department for Business and Transport The demise of the
cheque (9 December 2014), 15
70 Supra fn.64

14

faults in the account, within a reasonable amount of time: the situation in Arrow
Transfer. This area would benefit from, in the absence of statute, a judicial
decision based on a contemporary set of facts to cement it.
The importance of confidentiality is widely accepted, with some asserting that
the duty must be protected71 and the Jack Report stating its roots go deeper
than the business of banking: it has to do with the kind of society in which we
want to live.72 After the European Convention on Human Rights was given
domestic footing in the Human Rights Act 1998, it was given codified protection.
However, it seems that the inroads into it have been more significant than the
increased protections it afforded. The Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002 gives law
enforcement officers a wide range of powers to target criminality and infringe
upon the confidentiality of bank customers. It remains clear that in conjunction
with a growth in international initiatives such as the Financial Action Task Force,
any likely reform in this area will only lead to further inroads into confidentiality.
In relation to private law matters, the development of big data has made it
possible for banks to generate large, potentially valuable, tracts of data relating
to their customers spending and saving habits. This is of particular relevance to
Credit Reference Agencies, an area lacking a sufficiently detailed regime.
Concerns exist that banks may [] facilitate the exchange of information with
credit reference agencies for their own marketing purposes without taking
customers interests into account 73 they could justify this by disclosing white

71 R. Stokes, The Genesis of Banking Confidentiality, Journal of Legal History 32


(3) 2011, 279-294, 294
72 Supra fn.42, [5.26]
73 F. Alqudah Banks duty of confidentiality in the wake of computerised
banking JIBL 1995, 10(2), 50-55, 53

15

information [] about customers who are not in default 74 with black


information [] about defaulting customers 75 and then justify this under the
third Tournier exception of being in the banks interest. A greater reliance on the
banking codes could help but because the Lending Code is voluntary some
banks may choose not to adopt [its] standards and conditions 76 and so its effect
is diminished. Alternatively a more rigorous and standardised set of terms could
be included in the contract but this remains problematic as customers cannot be
relied upon to read all the terms prior to signing the mandate. 77
It is true that the [l]aw is always going to be playing catch up to technology 78
but once problems have been identified, remedial action should be taken. The
majority of the duties detailed here remain appropriate. The duty of care is a
flexible concept that can be adapted to meet any change in requirements and
practice in the banking sector and so it is hard to imagine that it will lose its
relevance. The duties to collect instruments and render an account are subject to
technological change; these will affect the standard expected of banks in relation
to their deposit-taking customers. However, the traditional duty of confidentiality
in its current form is inconsistent and inappropriate. Without a new and
comprehensive legal approach79 the needs of the 21st century customer will not
be met.
74 Ibid
75 Ibid
76 Supra fn. 34, 361
77 http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf
78 J. Murdoch Data protection law is in danger of lagging behind technological
change The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/12/data-protection-lawlagging-behind-technology Accessed 19 December 2014

16

Bibliography
Books

Anora, Banking Law (1st, Pearson, Harlow 2014)


E. Ellinger, E. Lomnicka, C. Hare, Ellingers Modern Banking Law (5th, OUP,
Oxford, 2011)

H. Beale, Chitty on Contracts (31st, Sweet and Maxwell, 2012)

Burrows, English Private Law (3rd, OUP, Oxford 2013)


Malek, J. Odgers, Pagets Law of Banking (14th, Butterworths Lexis Nexis,

London 2013)
Goodhart, The Regulatory Response to the Financial Crisis (1st, Edward
Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham 2009)

Reports

Banking Services: Law and Practice, Report by the Review Committee,

London, 1989, Cm. 622 (Jack Report)


Lending Code (October 2014)
T. Edmonds, Department for Business and Transport The demise of the

cheque (9 December 2014)


http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf

Articles

M. Arnold Barclays Antony Jenkins calls end of universal banking


Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef588b42-860a-11e4-b248-

00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MHMCQgzZ Accessed 18 December 2014


J. Murdoch Data protection law is in danger of lagging behind
technological change The Guardian

79 S. Abdulah, 'The Bank's Duty of Confidentiality, Disclosure Versus Credit Reference Agencies;
Further Steps For Consumer Protection: 'Approval Model'', (2013) 19(4) Web JCLI, 13

17

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/12/data-protection

law-lagging-behind-technology Accessed 19 December 2014


Deloitte, Looking ahead top trends in retail banking 2014
http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/insightsand-issues/ca-en-insights-issues-looking-ahead.pdf Accessed 19 December

2014
K. Flinders Two-thirds of banks prioritise payment technology
modernisation (Computerweekly.com 2014)
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240235939/Two-thirds-of-banksprioritise-payment-technology-modernisation accessed 19 December 2014

Academic Journals

A Azzouni Internet Banking and the Law J.I.B.L.R. 2003, 18(9), 351-362
P. Latimer, Bank secrecy in Australia: terrorism legislation as the new
exception to the Tournier rule, Journal of Money Laundering Control,

(2004) (8) 1, 56-65


R. Stokes, The Genesis of Banking Confidentiality, Journal of Legal History

32 (3) 2011, 279-294


F. Alqudah Banks duty of confidentiality in the wake of computerised

banking JIBL 1995, 10(2), 50-55


S. Abdulah, 'The Bank's Duty of Confidentiality, Disclosure Versus Credit
Reference Agencies; Further Steps For Consumer Protection: 'Approval

Model'', (2013) 19(4) Web JCLI


S. Abdulah, 'The Bank's Duty of Confidentiality, Disclosure Versus Credit
Reference Agencies; Further Steps For Consumer Protection: 'Approval
Model'', (2013) 19(4) Web JCLI

Table of Cases

SCF Finance Co. Ltd v Masri (No 2) [1987] QB 1007


Lacave & Co v Crdit Lyonnais [1887] 1 QB 148

Ladbroke & Co v Todd (1914) 30 TLR

18

Rowlandson v National Westminster Bank Ltd [1978] 1 WLR


Akbar Khan v Attar Singh [1936] All ER 545
Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28
Marzetti v Williams (1830) 1 B & Ad 415
Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110
Skyring v Greenwood and Cox (1925) 4 B & C 281
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80
Arrow Transfer Co Ltd. V Royal Bank of Canada (1972) 27 DLR (3d.) 81
Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461
Parry Jones v Law Society [1969] 1 Ch. 1

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, HL

Holt v Payne Skillington and De Groot Collis (1995) 77 BLR 51

Selangor United Rubber Estates v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 1 WLR 1555

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale & Co [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (CA)

Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v Gordon [1903] AC 249

19