By Paul Brehony, Kate Gee15 February 2021
The decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2021] EWHC 10 (Comm) is an important development that checks the recent expansion of the Quincecare duty. Although unsurprising on its facts, the court held that the Quincecare duty does not extend to authorised push payments (APP fraud), where a customer is tricked into making a payment, genuinely authorised between bank and customer, but made to a third-party fraudster.
Paul Brehony
In Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363, the court found that the bank’s fiduciary duty to its customer ‘was an implied term […] that the bank would observe reasonable skill and care’ when executing a customer’s instructions. A bank must refrain from executing a payment instruction if and for as long as it was put ‘on enquiry’ that the payment may be fraudulent. The court in Quincecare recognised that this was not a high standard, and that a bank is normally entitled to assume t