header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 July 2023 / Michael Brown , Charlie Shillito , David McIlroy
Issue: 8035 / Categories: Features , Fraud , Cybercrime , Banking , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

Any protection against authorised push payment fraud?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
132288
The Supreme Court has not rescued consumers who are the victims of APP fraud, but neither has it left them wholly unprotected: Michael Brown, Charlie Shillito & David McIlroy report on the judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank
  • The Supreme Court has held the Quincecare duty does not apply to victims of authorised push payment (APP) fraud.
  • There is limited protection for such victims at common law.
  • It is now over to Parliament and regulators to pick up the gauntlet.

The Supreme Court recently reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2023] UKSC 25, [2023] All ER (D) 53 (Jul). This case centred around liability for losses sustained by bank customers through authorised push payment (APP) fraud; a fraud in which victims are tricked into authorising payments from their bank accounts to an account controlled by the fraudster, often in the belief (induced by the fraudster) that the destination account is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll