Court of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise where the customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal in relation to a bank's Quincecare duty and authorised push payment fraud, finding in favour of the customer who lost the bulk of her life savings.

The Court decided unanimously that the Quincecare duty, ie the duty to refrain from acting on a payment instruction and to make inquiries when the bank is on notice of a serious possibility of fraud, does not depend on whether the bank is instructed by an agent of the customer. Rather, at least in principle it is possible that the Quincecare duty could arise where a customer instructs the bank themselves to make a payment, where the customer is the victim of authorised push payment fraud.  The Court emphasised the public policy considerations underpinning the Quincecare duty which reflects the role of banks in combatting fraud.  The Court held that whether such a duty arises for the bank must be decided at trial and was not suited to the summary judgment stage. It therefore set aside the summary judgment that had been obtained in favour of the bank.

The judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 318 can be found here.

To read our full analysis, click here.