Greenclose v National Westminster Bank plc

The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports™ The Jolly Contrarian holds forth™ →Go Premium 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 Common law | Litigation | Contract | Tort | Click ᐅ to expand: Case notes Index: Click ᐅ to expand: Essays

edit

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”.

Premium content

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 👇

edit

• 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?

See also

edit

• Andrews J’s Judgment
• The Victory of Form over Substance

References

[[category:Template:Casenote Essay]]