A recent decision (although subject to appeal) offers hope for victims of authorised push payment (APP) fraud
In this week’s NLJ, Jon Felce and Rosie Wild, partners at Cooke, Young & Keidan, explain the ruling and its implications, including what steps payment service providers should be taking in response.
The case in question is CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Bank Plc and another company. CCP was tricked into sending money to fraudsters, and turned to her bank for redress. Was a Quincecare duty owed? The facts have some similarities to those in Philipp v Barclays Bank.
Felce and Wild write: ‘Assuming a duty is found to exist, financial institutions will be interested particularly in the scope of that duty and what steps reasonably should be taken by them, including whether that extends beyond any system of indemnification found to exist.’
7670829bf5ee4855af368e509c9111b6.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=d9eca78_1)
