Contract
Federal Republic of Nigeria v JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA [2019] EWHC 347 (Comm), [2019] All ER (D) 156 (Feb)
It was well established that the Quincecare duty of care was a duty on a bank to refrain from executing a customer’s order if, and for so long as, the bank was ‘put on inquiry’ in the sense that the bank had reasonable grounds for believing, assessed according to the standards of an ordinary prudent banker, that the order was an attempt to defraud the customer. Applying that principle, the Commercial Court held, among other things, that the application of the defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, for reverse summary judgment against the claimant Federal Republic of Nigeria, under CPR 24.2, failed. On the correct interpretation of the depository agreement at issue, that Quincecare duty of care was neither inconsistent with, nor excluded by, the terms of that agreement.
Costs
Maugham QC v Uber London Ltd [2019] EWHC 391 (Ch), [2019] All ER (D) 158 (Feb)
The claimant’s application for a costs protection
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
