82,420
edits
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
At first instance, the court held that WF had not authorised the transfer. | 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 | Independent appealed, arguing that Lloyds ''was'' authorised, or that it was [[ostensible authority|''ostensibly'' authorised]] to transfer the money, so the payment discharged WFL’s debt to Independent, thus providing a defence to Lloyds’ claim restitution. | ||
Lloyds argued the first instance judge was right, but even if he wasn’t, Lloyds should still succeed on its [[restitution]]ary claim. | Lloyds argued the first instance judge was right, but even if he wasn’t, Lloyds should still succeed on its [[restitution]]ary claim. | ||