Quincecare: a duy to protect customers from themselves?
Established 35 years ago in the case of Quincecare v Barclays Bank, the Quincecare duty requires, in short, that banks and other financial institutions refrain from executing their customers’ orders if they are put on notice that those orders are part of a fraud on the customers.
Since then, the Quincecare duty mostly spent its time gathering dust.
However, in 2019, the Supreme Court case of Singularis v Daiwa triggered a revival and, since then, there has been no shortage of disputes. Against a backdrop of a massive rise in fraud, particularly push payments scams and online fraud, the debate over the Quincecare duty and what it requires of financial institutions has scarcely abated in recent years.
In this article for Financier Worldwide, Paul Johnson and David Fitzpatrick discuss some of the background to the Quincecare duty and how it has been tested in the Supreme Court, the role that legislation can play as well as what can be expected next.
Please note that the article appears on p168 of the May 2023 edition, which requires a subscription.