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 a
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=1da8eda2_1)
