619324Financial Law15PFMC058-A14/15Dr. Richard AlexanderAssignment 1Word Count Including Footnotes, Excluding Title Page and Bibliography: 3999

To discuss a banks deposit-taking business in complete isolation is a complex task. The financial crisis reinforced the extent to which the expansion in banking activities has left any attempted classification inadequate.[footnoteRef:1] This universal model of banking has begun to change, as increasingly tough regulation and capital requirements make the costs of maintaining a global, universal bank untenable[footnoteRef:2]. Nonetheless, deposit accounts continue to represent a major portion of a retail banks business, with over 90% of the United Kingdoms adult population [maintaining] a bank account.[footnoteRef:3] As the proportion of UK citizens with an account has increased so has the belief that [f]rom a customers view, maintaining a bank account is an essential form of social inclusion,[footnoteRef:4] as participation in banking has increased so has retail customers exposure to shocks in other areas of banking. [1: A. Anora, Banking Law (1st, Pearson, Harlow 2014) 10] [2: (The universal banking model is dead. Anthony Jenkins, Barclays Chief Executive) M. Arnold Barclays Antony Jenkins calls end of universal banking Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef588b42-860a-11e4-b248-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MHMCQgzZ Accessed 18 December 2014] [3: E. Ellinger, E. Lomnicka, C. Hare, Ellingers Modern Banking Law (5th, OUP, Oxford, 2011) 115] [4: Supra fn. 1, 6]

The core business of banking has traditionally encompassed deposit-taking and lending[footnoteRef:5] and the question of what the duties owed by a deposit-taking bank is discussed and whether they are appropriate in the 21st century follows. [5: H. Beale, Chitty on Contracts (31st, Sweet and Maxwell, 2012) 34-215]

The sources of these duties are varied. Following the Financial Crisis of 2007 and its aftermath new regulations and regulators were created but the general theme within the UK banking sector has been to ward off the threat of greater regulatory control of banking activities, especially in the retail sector.[footnoteRef:6]Nonetheless, some remain to be mandated in statute, but the vast majority of others, for that reason arise from common law. The soft-law sources such as banking-industry handbooks[footnoteRef:7] are the industrys attempts to stave off strict regulation and tend to support pre-existing duties rather than enumerate new ones. [6: A. Burrows, English Private Law (3rd, OUP, Oxford 2013) 14-05] [7: The Banking Code replaced by the Lending Code and The Business Banking Code]

Following the Financial Services Act 2012 (FSA 2012) two new regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) were created to oversee the financial services industry. The PRA deals with the prudential regulation of deposit-taking institutions and took over the work of the Financial Services Authority. The Banking Conduct Regime begun on 1 November 2009 and comprises: the Principles for Businesses, the Payment Services Regulations (PSRs) and the Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook (BCOBS)[footnoteRef:8]. These have been designed to work in tandem with the existing legislation applicable to deposit-taking institutions. [8: http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/being-regulated/banking/Conduct-regime]

There is a difficulty in isolating a bank and characterising it based on set activities; the terms bank, banker and banking cannot be uniformly defined for all purposes.[footnoteRef:9] Nonetheless the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) refers to core activities a concept that has been a part of the nomenclature since the first attempts to categorise and define banking arose. Deposit-taking[footnoteRef:10] falls within this and is defined within the Regulated Activities Order[footnoteRef:11]: [9: Supra fn.6, 14.08] [10: s. 5 FSMA] [11: FSMA 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544) Part II]

(1)Accepting deposits is a specified kind of activity if (a) money received by way of deposit is lent to others; or(b) any other activity of the person accepting the deposit is financed wholly, or to a material extent, out of the capital of or interest on money received by way of deposit.[footnoteRef:12] [12: Ibid. s.5(1)]

This activity is restricted to being in the course of business[footnoteRef:13] and within the United Kingdom. [13: SCF Finance Co. Ltd v Masri (No 2) [1987] QB 1007]

In order to determine to whom a bank owes duties, it is necessary to ascertain who its customers are. From this duties will be either be implied, such as with the Sale of Goods and Services Act s.13, or will arise as a consequence of the contract to provide banking services. Further there may also be equitable duties, depending on the nature of the transactions between the bank and customer. This contract, or mandate, has become ever more detailed as banking has developed and it is from this that the bulk of the duties owed by the bank arise. Ellinger states that there is no comprehensive statutory definition of the term customer[footnoteRef:14] but the common law authorities remain useful. If a person, bona fide, opens an account in their own name[footnoteRef:15] with a bank or has one opened for them[footnoteRef:16], then they will become a customer of the bank it must be noted though that the mere fact an account has been opened in someones name does not make them a customer, it must have been bona fide or with good authority for this relationship to arise.[footnoteRef:17] The agreement will generally be an account mandate that is signed, according to modern practice[footnoteRef:18] when the customer opens an account.[footnoteRef:19] This mandate will contain express provisions governing most eventualities and duties relating to the account (other duties may be implied). The customer will be protected from contracting away their rights in this mandate if they are deemed to be unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and the Unfair Terms in Contract Regulations 1999 (UCTRs 1999). [14: Supra fn.3, 115] [15: Lacave & Co v Crdit Lyonnais [1887] 1 QB 148] [16: Ladbroke & Co v Todd (1914) 30 TLR] [17: Rowlandson v National Westminster Bank Ltd [1978] 1 WLR] [18: Supra fn.6, 14.17] [19: Supra fn.5, 34-257]

Despite arising from a model of goldsmith-bailors who protected items left on bailment,[footnoteRef:20] the modern relationship between the bank and its customer is more similar to that of agent-principal, based on their agreement. It has been characterised as that of creditor and debtor.[footnoteRef:21] When depositing money into an account, the depositor does not expect the precise bills to be returned, as stated by Lord Atkin [a] deposit of money is not confined to a bailment of specific currency to be returned in specie.[footnoteRef:22]The customer accepts that the bank will take the money and use it to generate profits elsewhere, with the full amount being made available to the depositor on demand. As these other activities involve risk, the account will generally generate interest on the amounts deposited. In the past there were fixed conditions relating to this agreement to repay, in Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation[footnoteRef:23] it was noted that [t]he promise to repay at the branch of the bank where the account is kept, and during banking hours.[footnoteRef:24] This would have been appropriate for the early twentieth century but it is restrictive in a modern banking environment, where customers have access to twenty-four hour ATM services and internet banking. This example highlights the potential for disparity between duties arising from older banking case law and the modern needs of customers. [20: Supra fn.3, 119] [21: Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 supra fn.5, 34-257] [22: Akbar Khan v Attar Singh [1936] All ER 545 (PC), 548 ] [23: [1921] 3 KB 110 ] [24: Ibid, 127]

The relationship between a banker and customer is growing ever more imprecise because bankers perform different services for their customers and the nature of the relationship between the parties may vary from transaction to transaction.[footnoteRef:25] Nonetheless deposit-taking remains a core activity[footnoteRef:26] needing regulation and giving rise to unique duties. These are: the duty to collect instruments, duty to render an account, duty of confidentiality and the concurrent duty to exercise reasonable care and skill arising in contract and tort. [25: Supra fn.5, 34 257] [26: Supra fn.11]

The duty to collect instruments is a manifestation of the duty to conform to the customers mandate, and can be reformulated as: to act as expeditiously as possible in relation to the instruments.[footnoteRef:27] This will be to process payment through normal channels and credit the customers account, as was the case in Joachimson.. In determining the scope of the duty, the question of what is a reasonable amount of time must be explored. In Marzetti v Williams[footnoteRef:28] it was determined that 4 hours after after presenting a cheque at the holding branch for the appropriate amount to be credited to a customers account was too long. If the payment is an instrument such as a cheque, which needs to be cleared, then the bank will accordingly be allowed more time; a term will be implied to the effect that cheques are to be collected within a reasonable time;[footnoteRef:29] the reasonableness of time taken will be determined in line with industry standards of banking. In Hare v Henty;[footnoteRef:30] a reasonable time for presenting an instrument to be cleared was said to be the day it was presented or the following day. [27: Supra fn.1, 251] [28: (1830) 1 B & Ad 415] [29: Supra fn.6, 14.68] [30: Hare v Henty (1861) 19 CBNS 65]

Cheques give rise to further duties: the bank collecting on behalf of its customer must notify the customer, without delay, if the cheque is dishonoured.[footnoteRef:31] Further, there may be problems relating to ownership of the cheque, which may conflict with the banks duty to its customer on collecting. There may be statutory relief [footnoteRef:32] from liability, if they can prove action without negligence. [31: Supra fn.3, 715] [32: Cheques Act 1957 s.4(1)]

An integral[footnoteRef:33] part of a banks relationship with its customer is the duty that it will provide an up to date record of any transactions and a balance. Traditionally passbooks or paper statements were the primary means of accounting for the level of credit attached to a customers account but computerisation has led to their replacement by up to date snapshots of an account whether on the internet or via ATM machines. It can now be said that as a result [b]anking is now no longer the exclusive realm in which customers and bank employees meet face to face in order to check an account or make a transfer. It is also no longer possible to think in terms of paper based payment instructions and settlement processes.[footnoteRef:34] The weight of an accurate reflection of an accounts balance was recognised by Abbott CJ in Skyring v Greenwood and Cox: [i]t is of great importance to any man [] Every prudent man accommodates his mode of living to what he supposes to be his income.[footnoteRef:35] [33: Supra fn.1, 252] [34: A. Azzouni Internet Banking and the Law J.I.B.L.R. 2003, 18(9), 351-362] [35: (1925) 4 B & C 281, 289]

The duty to provide up to date information on the status of the account is problematic because at law, the statement of an account balance is not conclusive evidence of the state of the account; it is merely prima facie.[footnoteRef:36] This leaves the scenario envisaged by Abbott CJ as a possibility the customer could act in accordance with the information available. The law is inconclusive on this point. In Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd[footnoteRef:37] banks sought to shield themselves from liability relating to incorrect statements and the onus was placed upon the customer to check their statement and report to the bank any inconsistencies any failure to do so would absolve the bank of liability. It was held in Tai Hing that the terms were too loosely worded to have the effect the banks wished. Nonetheless, Anora supports[footnoteRef:38] the position in Arrow Transfer Co Ltd. V Royal Bank of Canada,[footnoteRef:39] in which a verification of account clause on the customer was upheld. This is a welcome approach since the greater access to account details via technology brings with it a greater onus on the customer subject to any clause being reasonable under UCTA 1977 and UCTRs 1999. [36: Supra fn.1, 253] [37: [1986] AC 80] [38: Supra fn.1, 258] [39: (1972) 27 DLR (3d.) 81]

The duty of confidentiality arises from the fact that that a banks relationship with its customer comprises elements of an agency relationship.[footnoteRef:40] The Court of Appeal decision in Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England[footnoteRef:41] is generally taken as the starting-point of the history of the bankers duty of confidentiality.[footnoteRef:42] The Jack Report considered whether, as in some jurisdictions,[footnoteRef:43] this duty should be codified. Currently it remains outside the ambit of legislation and is implied into the contract. Banks themselves reinforce this concept within the Lending Code: [p]ersonal information will be treated as private and confidential, and subscribers will provide secure and reliable banking and payment systems.[footnoteRef:44] The duty was elucidated further in Parry Jones v Law Society.[footnoteRef:45] The banker-customer relationship was compared to other agency relationships such as solicitor and client, doctor and patient and accountant and customer. However, the bankers duty is qualified and four exceptions were set out in Tournier: [40: Supra fn.1, 171] [41: [1924] 1 KB 461] [42: Banking Services: Law and Practice, Report by the Review Committee, London, 1989, Cm. 622 (Jack Report), 5.01] [43: Switzerland and Singapore both have express statutory protections of confidentiality, reflecting the nature of the banking industries in their respective jurisdictions. ] [44: Lending Code (October 2014), 7] [45: [1969] 1 Ch. 1, 9]

(a) where disclosure is under compulsion of law; (b) where there is a duty to the public to disclose; (c) where the interests of the bank require disclosure; (d) where the disclosure is made by the express or implied consent of the customer.[footnoteRef:46] [46: Supra fn.41, 473]

Diplock LJ in Parry expounded the first qualification [s]uch a duty of confidence is subject to, and overridden by, the duty of any party to that contract to comply with the law of the land.[footnoteRef:47] The impact of the law of the land has grown and [r]ecent years have seen significant inroads to the duty of confidentiality as a result of statutory and judicial intervention.[footnoteRef:48] Disclosure forms an important part of the civil and criminal procedure and there are, according to Anora[footnoteRef:49], over 21 statutory provisions in existence currently that override confidentiality. She submits that this situation has so eroded [the duty of confidentiality] that the obligation now is to make disclosure and [it] only exists as an exception.[footnoteRef:50] This qualification will also, in certain circumstances, apply to foreign laws and represents the most significant inroad into the bankers duty of confidentiality. [47: Supra fn.45, 9] [48: Supra fn.1, 263] [49: Ibid] [50: Ibid]

The second qualification, that a bank may breach the provision of confidentiality if the information released is in the interest of the public, is largely obsolete as there are a number of statutes relating to the myriad situations when this exception might have been relevant in the past.[footnoteRef:51] It has been labelled the most difficult[footnoteRef:52] qualification and attempts having been made to abolish it. The third qualification is when disclosure is in the banks interest and the fourth represents a consensual release of information that the customer has already approved. [51: P. Latimer, Bank secrecy in Australia: terrorism legislation as the new exception to theTournierrule, Journal of Money Laundering Control, (2004) (8) 1, 56-65] [52: A. Malek, J. Odgers, Pagets Law of Banking (14th, Butterworths Lexis Nexis, London 2013) ]

The duty of care owed by a banker to its customer arises from both common law and the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA 1982). The duty to exercise reasonable care and skill is an implied contractual term in any contract for the provision of services[footnoteRef:53] and this same duty may also arise in tort.[footnoteRef:54]This permits the customer two potential routes of redress: they can take advantage of differences in limitation periods, remoteness of damage and contributory negligence[footnoteRef:55] to help any action they may bring. There are scenarios where the basis of liability may be larger in tort than in contract[footnoteRef:56] but as shown in Tai Hing, courts will not impose a duty in tort that is inconsistent with the terms of the contract.[footnoteRef:57] [53: S.13 SGSA 1983] [54: Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, HL] [55: Supra fn.3, 154] [56: Holt v Payne Skillington and De Groot Collis (1995) 77 BLR 51] [57: Supra fn.1, 283]

The standard of service that a banker will be held to was elucidated by Ungoed-Thomas J, in Selangor United Rubber Estates v Cradock (No 3): [t]he standard of reasonable care and skill is an objective standard applicable to bankers.[footnoteRef:58] Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale & Co[footnoteRef:59] reinforced this and went further: engaging in ordinary types of banking transaction or providing everyday banking or account services to customer [] will not usually involve a bank in a breach of its duty of care to those customers.[footnoteRef:60] This protects a bank that carries out its activities bona fides. [58: [1968] 1 WLR 1555, 1608] [59: [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (CA)] [60: Supra fn.3, 158]

Todays banking customer inhabits a complex, fast-paced, technology-driven environment[footnoteRef:61] and is not the customer of a decade ago.[footnoteRef:62] As a result they will have different expectations in the level of service that their bank will provide. Following the financial systems heart-attack[footnoteRef:63] in 2007, there was a reaction against the banking and financial systems and a move towards regulation that would protect depositors from the riskier elements of banking activity. Schemes such as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme were expanded to cover more of a depositors money in response to the collapse of institutions such as Northern Rock. Technological advances continue apace and new innovations are constantly applied as banks strive to keep up with customers needs. These changes will impact the duties owed by a deposit-taking bank in the 21st century. [61: Deloitte Looking ahead top trends in retail banking 2014 http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/insights-and-issues/ca-en-insights-issues-looking-ahead.pdf Accessed 19 December 2014, [3]] [62: Ibid ] [63: C. Goodhart, The Regulatory Response to the Financial Crisis (1st, Edward Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham 2009), 1]

Turning first to the duty of care owed by a bank to its customer, due to the flexible nature of the standard of care an objective test determined by the reasonable conduct of the day this will continue to remain appropriate. As the needs or practices change, the standard can be reformulated.Many banks are embracing new payment technology which means the collection of instruments is becoming faster and easier to process. The rush to use technologies such as near-field communication and digital wallets[footnoteRef:64] is paving the way for a new era of collecting on behalf of customers. It is estimated that consumers will be making up to 195 billion mobile payments each year by 2019.[footnoteRef:65]Modern technology has changed the standard expected of banks in collecting instruments and this means that an immediate credit to the customers account would not be unreasonable.[footnoteRef:66] The modernisation of clearing systems presents a difficulty in deciding when funds should become available to be drawn upon by the customer. There is authority in Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v Gordon[footnoteRef:67] for banks to present customers with funds before the instrument has cleared. As clearing systems become ever faster through automation this practice will presumably become more common. The question remains with regard to instruments such as cheques, which must be cleared, as to whether immediate recognition of a transfer will be possible and what the legal position of such clearances should be. The immediate creation of funds on receipt of money transfers is understandable but the position regarding of cheques remains difficult. The Payments Council has announced that cheque-usage will end by 31 October 2018 and therefore it will not present a problem after that date. Prior to that, it has been proposed that payment[footnoteRef:68] of an instrument by electronic means is acceptable and therefore the sending of a photograph of a cheque will now be possible.[footnoteRef:69]. This is a welcome move but it remains to be seen whether or not it will be a viable option. Further, the acceptance of pictorial Internet evidence may impose greater duties on banks in relation to fraudulent instruments. [64: K. Flinders Two-thirds of banks prioritise payment technology modernisation (Computerweekly.com 2014) http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240235939/Two-thirds-of-banks-prioritise-payment-technology-modernisation accessed 19 December 2014] [65: Ibid ] [66: Supra fn.1, 251] [67: [1903] AC 249] [68: s.89A Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill 2014] [69: T. Edmonds, Department for Business and Transport The demise of the cheque (9 December 2014), 15]

By 2018, 214 million people in Europe will bank using mobile devices[footnoteRef:70] and together with the growth of online payments and 24-hour transactions, this will result in a greater onus on banks to provide accurate account information. Nonetheless the duty to furnish accurate accounts, as formulated in Tai Hing, remains appropriate. Due to the customers ability to inspect the balance of an account for free at any time of the day, it is submitted that it would not be unreasonable to impose, in the customers mandate, a duty to make-known any faults in the account, within a reasonable amount of time: the situation in Arrow Transfer. This area would benefit from, in the absence of statute, a judicial decision based on a contemporary set of facts to cement it. [70: Supra fn.64]

The importance of confidentiality is widely accepted, with some asserting that the duty must be protected[footnoteRef:71] and the Jack Report stating its roots go deeper than the business of banking: it has to do with the kind of society in which we want to live.[footnoteRef:72] After the European Convention on Human Rights was given domestic footing in the Human Rights Act 1998, it was given codified protection. However, it seems that the inroads into it have been more significant than the increased protections it afforded. The Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002 gives law enforcement officers a wide range of powers to target criminality and infringe upon the confidentiality of bank customers. It remains clear that in conjunction with a growth in international initiatives such as the Financial Action Task Force, any likely reform in this area will only lead to further inroads into confidentiality. [71: R. Stokes, The Genesis of Banking Confidentiality, Journal of Legal History 32 (3) 2011, 279-294, 294] [72: Supra fn.42, [5.26]]

In relation to private law matters, the development of big data has made it possible for banks to generate large, potentially valuable, tracts of data relating to their customers spending and saving habits. This is of particular relevance to Credit Reference Agencies, an area lacking a sufficiently detailed regime. Concerns exist that banks may [] facilitate the exchange of information with credit reference agencies for their own marketing purposes without taking customers interests into account[footnoteRef:73] they could justify this by disclosing white information [] about customers who are not in default[footnoteRef:74] with black information [] about defaulting customers[footnoteRef:75] and then justify this under the third Tournier exception of being in the banks interest. A greater reliance on the banking codes could help but because the Lending Code is voluntary some banks may choose not to adopt [its] standards and conditions[footnoteRef:76] and so its effect is diminished. Alternatively a more rigorous and standardised set of terms could be included in the contract but this remains problematic as customers cannot be relied upon to read all the terms prior to signing the mandate.[footnoteRef:77] [73: F. Alqudah Banks duty of confidentiality in the wake of computerised banking JIBL 1995, 10(2), 50-55, 53] [74: Ibid] [75: Ibid] [76: Supra fn. 34, 361] [77: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf]

It is true that the [l]aw is always going to be playing catch up to technology[footnoteRef:78] but once problems have been identified, remedial action should be taken. The majority of the duties detailed here remain appropriate. The duty of care is a flexible concept that can be adapted to meet any change in requirements and practice in the banking sector and so it is hard to imagine that it will lose its relevance. The duties to collect instruments and render an account are subject to technological change; these will affect the standard expected of banks in relation to their deposit-taking customers. However, the traditional duty of confidentiality in its current form is inconsistent and inappropriate. Without a new and comprehensive legal approach[footnoteRef:79] the needs of the 21st century customer will not be met. [78: J. Murdoch Data protection law is in danger of lagging behind technological change The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/12/data-protection-law-lagging-behind-technology Accessed 19 December 2014] [79: S. Abdulah, 'The Bank's Duty of Confidentiality, Disclosure Versus Credit Reference Agencies; Further Steps For Consumer Protection: 'Approval Model'', (2013) 19(4) Web JCLI, 13 ]

BibliographyBooks Anora, Banking Law (1st, Pearson, Harlow 2014) E. Ellinger, E. Lomnicka, C. Hare, Ellingers Modern Banking Law (5th, OUP, Oxford, 2011) H. Beale, Chitty on Contracts (31st, Sweet and Maxwell, 2012) Burrows, English Private Law (3rd, OUP, Oxford 2013) Malek, J. Odgers, Pagets Law of Banking (14th, Butterworths Lexis Nexis, London 2013) Goodhart, The Regulatory Response to the Financial Crisis (1st, Edward Elgar Publishing , Cheltenham 2009)Reports Banking Services: Law and Practice, Report by the Review Committee, London, 1989, Cm. 622 (Jack Report) Lending Code (October 2014) T. Edmonds, Department for Business and Transport The demise of the cheque (9 December 2014) http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdfArticles M. Arnold Barclays Antony Jenkins calls end of universal banking Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef588b42-860a-11e4-b248-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3MHMCQgzZ Accessed 18 December 2014 J. Murdoch Data protection law is in danger of lagging behind technological change The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/apr/12/data-protection-law-lagging-behind-technology Accessed 19 December 2014 Deloitte, Looking ahead top trends in retail banking 2014 http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/insights-and-issues/ca-en-insights-issues-looking-ahead.pdf Accessed 19 December 2014 K. Flinders Two-thirds of banks prioritise payment technology modernisation (Computerweekly.com 2014) http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240235939/Two-thirds-of-banks-prioritise-payment-technology-modernisation accessed 19 December 2014Academic Journals A Azzouni Internet Banking and the Law J.I.B.L.R. 2003, 18(9), 351-362 P. Latimer, Bank secrecy in Australia: terrorism legislation as the new exception to theTournierrule, Journal of Money Laundering Control, (2004) (8) 1, 56-65 R. Stokes, The Genesis of Banking Confidentiality, Journal of Legal History 32 (3) 2011, 279-294 F. Alqudah Banks duty of confidentiality in the wake of computerised banking JIBL 1995, 10(2), 50-55 S. Abdulah, 'The Bank's Duty of Confidentiality, Disclosure Versus Credit Reference Agencies; Further Steps For Consumer Protection: 'Approval Model'', (2013) 19(4) Web JCLI S. Abdulah, 'The Bank's Duty of Confidentiality, Disclosure Versus Credit Reference Agencies; Further Steps For Consumer Protection: 'Approval Model'', (2013) 19(4) Web JCLI

Table of Cases SCF Finance Co. Ltd v Masri (No 2) [1987] QB 1007 Lacave & Co v Crdit Lyonnais [1887] 1 QB 148 Ladbroke & Co v Todd (1914) 30 TLR Rowlandson v National Westminster Bank Ltd [1978] 1 WLR Akbar Khan v Attar Singh [1936] All ER 545 Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 Marzetti v Williams (1830) 1 B & Ad 415 Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110 Skyring v Greenwood and Cox (1925) 4 B & C 281 Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80 Arrow Transfer Co Ltd. V Royal Bank of Canada (1972) 27 DLR (3d.) 81 Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461 Parry Jones v Law Society [1969] 1 Ch. 1 Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145, HL Holt v Payne Skillington and De Groot Collis (1995) 77 BLR 51 Selangor United Rubber Estates v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 1 WLR 1555 Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale & Co [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (CA) Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v Gordon [1903] AC 249

[Type text][Type text][Type text]15