header-logo header-logo

09 June 2017
Issue: 7749 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Bank

Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch v CIMB Bank Berhad [2017] EWHC 1264 (Comm), [2017] All ER (D) 171 (May)

The Commercial Court ruled on a dispute between the claimant bank (Deutsche, the confirming bank), and the defendant bank (CIMB—the issuing bank), concerning Deutsche’s claim for reimbursement of sums it had allegedly paid to a company (as beneficiary), under letters of credit issued by CIMB.

Deutsche had argued that the issuing bank, under a letter of credit, had to accept, on its face, a statement by the confirming bank that it had paid the beneficiary under letters of credit, and that CIMB had no right to request further information in respect of that payment.

The court held that, on the true construction of Art 7(c) of the Uniform Customs & Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), read with the definition of ‘honour’ in Art 2 of UCP 600, an issuing bank’s undertaking to reimburse a confirming bank arose where the confirming bank had honoured a complying presentation by making payment under the credit.

It further held that, in circumstances where

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll