Stupid banker cases: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 04:43, 2 April 2023

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.

Index: Click ᐅ to expand:

Stupid bankers

Restitution

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

Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort |

Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes

Tell me more Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

There is a series of what we can only describe as the “stupid banker” cases, which involve bankers negligently paying money to people they didn’t mean to, who then refuse to give it back.

The cases are all quite similar in facts — the boil down to, well, bankers paying money on their customers’ behalves to creditors and later regretting it, but the courts come to wildly different conclusions, and it is quite the epistemological struggle to hold all of them in your head at once. So here is our handy cut-out-and-keep guide.

The following factual variables:

Where did this happen? Possible answers: New York or the United Kingdom;
What were the customer’s instructions? Possible answers: do pay the money; definitely do not pay the money; and no particular instruction (so prima facie, do not pay the money, but room for that presumption to be rebutted)
Was there any indebtedness?: Did the customer owe the bank any thing as a result
Did the customer actually owe the payee anything? Possible answers: yes and no;
If the customer did own the payee, when was the debt due? Possible answers: On the day it was actually paid; at some point in the next month at the customer’s discretion (i.e., a normal trade invoice); at a specified date in the future (such as a loan repayment date)

Case	Where	When	Customer’s Instructions	When due?	Authority?	Outcome
Banque Worms	New York	1989	Do NOT pay	Immediately	Not relevant to restitutionary defence.	Payee kept the money
Citibank v Brigade	New York	2021	No instructions	Not till 2023	Ostensible, but not relevant to restitutionary defence.	Payee kept the money
Barclays v Simms	UK	1979	Do NOT pay	Trade invoice	Ostensible, not actual	Payee returned the money
Lloyds v Independent Insurance	UK	1998	Do pay, as soon as I have cleared funds	Immediately	Actual	Payee kept the money.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{a|casenote|{{stupidbanker}}}}There is a series of what we can only describe as the “stupid banker” cases, which involve bankers negligently paying money to people they didn’t mean to, who then refuse to give it back. The cases are all quite similar in facts — the boil down to, well, bankers paying money on their customers’ behalves to creditors and later regretting it, but the courts come to wildly different conclusions, and it is quite the epistemological struggle to hold all of them in your head at once. So here is our handy cut-out-and-keep guide.
+{{a|casenote|{{stupidbanker}}}}There is a series of what we can only describe as the “stupid banker” cases, which involve bankers negligently paying money to people they didn’t mean to, who then refuse to give it back.
+The cases are all quite similar in facts — the boil down to, well, bankers paying money on their customers’ behalves to creditors and later regretting it, but the courts come to wildly different conclusions, and it is quite the epistemological struggle to hold all of them in your head at once. So here is our handy cut-out-and-keep guide.
 The following factual variables:
 *'''Where did this happen?''' Possible answers: New York or the United Kingdom;
-*'''What were the customer’s instructions?''' Possible answers: ''do'' pay the money; definitely do ''not'' pay the money; and ''no particular instruction'' (so prima facie, do not pay the money, but room for that presumption to be rebutted)
+*'''What were the customer’s instructions?''' Possible answers: ''do'' pay the money; definitely do ''not'' pay the money; and ''no particular instruction'' (so ''prima facie'', do not pay the money, but room for that presumption to be rebutted)
+*'''Was there any indebtedness?''': Did the customer owe the bank any thing as a result
 *'''Did the customer actually owe the payee anything?''' Possible answers: yes and no;
 *'''If the customer did own the payee, when was the debt due?''' Possible answers: On the day it was actually paid; at some point in the next month at the customer’s discretion (i.e., a normal trade invoice); at a specified date in the future (such as a loan repayment date)
-{{tabletop}}
+{{tabletopflex}}
 ! Case
 ! Where
 ! When
-! Customer’ Instructions
+! Customer’s Instructions
-! Was there indebtedness?
 ! When due?
 ! Authority?
 ! Outcome
-|-
+{{aligntop}}
 |''[[Banque Worms]]''
 |New York
 |1989
 |Do NOT pay
-|Yes, but disputed because payee insolvent.
 |Immediately
 |Not relevant to [[Discharge-for-value defense|restitutionary defence]].
 |Payee kept the money
-|-
+{{aligntop}}
 |''[[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management|Citibank v Brigade]]''
 |New York
 |2021
 |No instructions
-|Yes
 |Not till 2023
 | Ostensible, but not relevant to [[Discharge-for-value defense|restitutionary defence]].
 |Payee kept the money
-|-
+{{aligntop}}
 |''[[Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms|Barclays v Simms]]''
 |UK
 |1979
 |Do NOT pay
-|Yes
 |Trade invoice
 | Ostensible, not actual
 | Payee returned the money
-|-
+{{aligntop}}
 |''[[Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance|Lloyds v Independent Insurance]]''
 |UK
 |1998
 |Do pay, as soon as I have cleared funds
-|Yes
 |Immediately
 |Actual
 |Payee kept the money.
 {{tablebottom}}

Stupid banker cases: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 04:43, 2 April 2023

Navigation menu

Search