ABSTRACT
Ruling out the application of the Quincecare duty to ‘authorised push payment’ fraud, the UK Supreme Court articulated a novel juridical basis for the duty. Contrary to the court’s reasoning, the Quincecare duty does not follow from orthodox principles of banking and agency law – it is a ‘special or idiosyncratic’ term implied in law into contracts between banks and customers.
Yap, John and Khaw, Joseph, Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc in the UK Supreme Court: The Quincecare Duty as a ‘Special or Idiosyncratic’ Term Implied in Law (December 1, 2022), (2023) 38 Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, issue 12.
Leave a Reply