Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance: Difference between revisions

Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance (view source)

Revision as of 11:13, 20 February 2021

2,169 bytes added , 20 February 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,892

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Lloyds Bank|Independent Insurance|1998|EWCACiv|1853}}
+===A word about pronouns===
+A Court of Appeal judge is undoubtedly a guardian of the Queen’s English, and far be it from this snitty little rogue to have an opinion (I mean, can you imagine?), but Lord Justice Waller’s habit of referring to a corporation as if it were<ref>Note: [[subjunctive]]!</ref> a ''crowd'', and therefore a [[plural]] is ''an abomination''.
+It is galling enough when members of the internet do this, to their favourite [[Nigel molesworth|foopball]] teams or pop bands, where there is at least an argument, however misguided, that the whole is no more than the sum of its members, but a [[corporation]], under his honour’s own freaking ''law'', is ''its own [[legal personality]]''. It is — must be, at a profoundly [[ontological]] level — a ''singular'' entity.
+And nor can this be put down to [[wokeness]]: firstly, it was 1998, so ''everyone'' was racist, misogynist and cis-biased etc. etc. etc. — i.e., ''no-one'' was [[woke]], and secondly, in any case, “bank” takes the neuter pronoun [[it]], so would have been perfectly [[woke]] in the singular anyway.
+I have re-rendered the pronouns as they should be.<ref>Yes: like most commercials lawyers I have some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but unusually, also I have appalling attention to detail. This is a cross I have had to bear my whole life.</ref>
+Right.
+===Issue===
+LLoyds transferred money into Independent’s account at the Royal Bank of Scotland by mistake. Independent argued that LLoyds made the transfer on behalf of its customer WFL, with its authority, to discharge WFL’s debt that was due to Independent.
+At first instance, the court held that WF had not authorised the transfer. Independent appealed, arguing that LLoyds ''was'' authorised, or that it was [[ostensible authority|''ostensibly'' authorised]] to transfer the money, so the payment discharged WF’s debt to Independent, thus providing a defence to LLoyds’ claim restitution. The Bank seek to uphold the judge's findings in relation to authority but in the alternative seeks to argue that even if authorised LLoyds were entitled to succeed on their restitutionary claim.
 {{sa}}