Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:43, 12 June 2023

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports™

The Jolly Contrarian holds forth™

Resources and Navigation

Editorial Board of the JCLR: Managing Editor: Lord Justice Cocklecarrot M.R. · General Editor: Sir Jerrold Baxter-Morley, K.C. · Principle witness: Mrs. Pinterman

Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes

Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Essays

A fine example of that old legal maxim anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt: Little old ladies (and, in this case, aggrieved Welsh hotel owners) make bad law, Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc (judgment) opines on the apparently harmless Notices Section (12) of the 1992 ISDA. It considers the meaning of “electronic messaging system” and, saucily, finds that it does not include email.

Let me say that again, in case you missed it: in the eyes of the current common law email does not count as an “electronic messaging system”.

Here the free bit runs out. Subscribers click 👉 here. New readers sign up 👉 here and, for ½ a weekly 🍺 go full ninja about all these juicy topics 👇

The loan and the interest rate hedge: the strange history of banks ripping off small businesses by selling them unnecessarily complicated loan and swap packages
Schoolboy errors, and pricing options to roll off during the grundle
Is email an “electronic messaging system”? It is, right? Right? GUYS?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-as case opining on the meaning of the apparently harmless {{isdaprov|Notices}} Section (Section {{isdaprov|12}}) of the {{1992ma}}, and in particular what is an [[electronic messaging system]] and more to the point what it is not - in the opinion of learned Justice Andrews, and includes [[email]].
+{{essay|casenote|Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc|}}
-Mister Greenclose, one of those fabled little old ladies of the law, was in fact a sophisticated and successful owner of family business running small luxury hotels. he entered an extendable collar transaction under a 1992 {{isdama}} - the edition is important - which would expire on 30 December unless NatWest gave proper notice of its extension before that time.
-Schoolboy error no.1 by NatWest was to provide for a notice deadline to expires when the recipient is highly likelihood to be out of the office. But that's as may be.
-Error no. 2 - less of a schoolboy one, in this reviewer's opinion, was to assume that an email - being, after all, an '''electronic''' mail sent over a computer '''system''' (so sayeth [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email Wikipedia]) fell within the meaning of an "electronic messaging system".