82,903
edits
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance: Difference between revisions
Lloyds Bank v Independent Insurance (view source)
Revision as of 12:02, 20 February 2021
, 20 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Lloyds Bank|Independent Insurance|1998|EWCACiv|1853}} | {{a|casenote|}}{{cite|Lloyds Bank|Independent Insurance|1998|EWCACiv|1853}} | ||
===A word about | ===A word about [[pronoun]]s=== | ||
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''. | 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''. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
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. | 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 | 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. | |||
Lloyds argued the first instance judge was right, but even if he wasn’t, LLoyds should still succeed on its [[restitution]]ary claim. | |||
===Facts=== | |||
There is some confusion to be navigated not only on account of [[Lord Justice Waller]]’s curious facility with [[pronoun]]s, but because ''both'' WF and Independent had accounts at RBS. WF was apparently moving its business from RBS to Lloyds. There was a bit of a [[S.N.A.F.U.]] where WF first sent Independent a [[cheque]] drawn on RBS, which bounced, but this is all a bit of pre-conflict theatre. | |||
The meat of the action happened when WF instructed its new bank, Lloyds, to credit the same amount, £162,387.90, to Indepedent’s RBS account by wire transfer. At the time, Lloyds account only had £982 in it. Lloyds said, “we’ll do it as soon as you put us in [[cleared fund]]s”. Funds were incoming by means of a cheque for £168,000 drawn in WF’s favour by a third part, Kaffco. | |||
Lloyds credited Kaffco’s cheque to WF’s new account, but marked it as “uncleared funds”, awaiting clearance from Kaffco’s bank. | |||
You’ll never guess what happened next.<ref>Not, if you have the same [[acumen]] as the average distressed lender in the New York market, at any rate: about 12 of them [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management|testified in court]] that they could not imagine in a trillion years, such a thing happening.</ref> | |||
Lloyds only went and paid out the £168,000 before the third-party Kaffco cleared by mistake, didn’t it. | |||
And you’ll never guess what happened after that: the Kaffco cheque bounced. | |||
''Whoops''. | |||