82,893
edits
Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms (view source)
Revision as of 12:52, 20 February 2021
, 20 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Robert Goff J seemed rather relieved at this outcome, expressing his basic conviction that, to hell with the law, the right outcome was to give the bank back the money, and let the principals duke it out. This is the ''[[non nocere, nulla turpi]]''<ref>[[No harm, no foul]].</ref> principle: | Robert Goff J seemed rather relieved at this outcome, expressing his basic conviction that, to hell with the law, the right outcome was to give the bank back the money, and let the principals duke it out. This is the ''[[non nocere, nulla turpi]]''<ref>[[No harm, no foul]].</ref> principle: | ||
{{quote| | |||
{{quote|“If the bank had not failed to overlook its customer’s instructions, the cheque would have been returned by it marked “Orders not to pay,” and there would have followed a perfectly bona fide dispute between the association [... ''as to''] whether the association was entitled to stop the cheque — which ought to be the real dispute in the case. If the plaintiff bank had been unable to recover the money, [ ... ''it''] would have had no recourse to the association [... ''meaning''] a windfall for the preferred creditors of the defendant company at the plaintiff bank’s expense. As, however, I have held that the money is recoverable, the situation is as it should have been; nobody is harmed, and the true dispute between the association and the receiver can be resolved on its merits.”}} | |||
===The JC says=== | ===The JC says=== | ||