header-logo header-logo

16 September 2020
Issue: 7902 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 18 September 2020

Bank

Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank plc [2020] EWHC 2232 (Ch), [2020] All ER (D) 169 (Jul)

HSBC Bank plc had applied to strike out, or obtain reverse summary judgment under CPR Pt 24 on, two discrete aspects of a claim brought against it by the joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank plc (SIB). The claim alleged: (i) that HSBC had failed in breach of its duty under Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 to take sufficient care to see that the monies that were being paid out from accounts under its control were being properly paid out (the Quincecare allegation); and (ii) dishonest assistance in relation to breaches of fiduciary duty by SIB’s ultimate beneficial owner. The Chancery Division held that the allegation of dishonest assistance would be struck out: absent an allegation of targeted suspicion and of a deliberate decision not to look, the copious allegations made against HSBC did not amount, singularly or cumulatively, to allegations that could properly be characterised

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll