In this special edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider a key risk area for financial institutions handling client payments – the Quincecare duty of care. This episode is hosted by Ceri Morgan, a professional support consultant in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Mark Tanner and Scott Warin.
Quincecare duty claims typically arise where a bank or deposit holding financial institution has received a payment mandate from an authorised signatory of its customer, and executed the order, in circumstances where (allegedly) there were red flags to suggest that the order was an attempt to misappropriate the funds of the customer. The past few years have witnessed an uptick in such claims, with a proliferation of judgments being handed down in quick succession since the Supreme Court’s decision in Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd  UKSC 50. In our podcast, we discuss how these judgments have defined both the scope of the duty, and the potential tools in the armoury of banks to defend these claims.
- Court of Appeal judgment on scope and exclusion of “Quincecare” duty of care
- Supreme Court upholds first successful claim for breach of the so-called “Quincecare” duty of care
- High Court refuses to strike out Quincecare duty claim against a PSP where its customer was hijacked by fraudsters
- High Court provides further insights on the risks of Quincecare claims against banks
- High Court confirms current scope of Quincecare duty is limited to protecting corporate customers and does not extend to individuals
- Hong Kong court refuses to expand scope of Quincecare duty
Please subscribe to the podcast channel here to listen to our regular bite-sized broadcasts covering both litigation and regulatory developments for banks and other financial institutions.