Frost v James Finlay Bank Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 667 (23rd May, 2002)

Frost v James Finlay Bank Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 667 (23rd May, 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to allow the late amendment to the pleadings, as the evidence relevant to the point had emerged during trial and the amendment did not fundamentally alter the case. The court found that the bank, through its conduct and the involvement of its insurance arm, led...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 667
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Sara Frost (formerly Mrs Cameron); Defendant/appellant: James Finlay Bank Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on damages noted.
Legal Topics
Bank's Duty of Care to Customer, Assumption of Advisory Role by Bank, Negligence in Insurance Advice, Pleading Amendments, Causation and Damages in Negligence
Banking Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Bank's Duty of Care to Customer Assumption of Advisory Role by Bank Negligence in Insurance Advice Pleading Amendments Causation and Damages in Negligence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Frost (formerly Mrs Cameron)

Claimant/respondent

James Finlay Bank Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank owed a duty of care to the claimant in relation to advice or requirement to change insurers
  2. 2 Whether the bank breached any such duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the claimant suffered loss as a result of any breach

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to allow the late amendment to the pleadings, as the evidence relevant to the point had emerged during trial and the amendment did not fundamentally alter the case. The court found that the bank, through its conduct and the involvement of its insurance arm, led the claimant reasonably to believe that changing insurers was a requirement of the facility, and that the bank assumed the responsibilities of a broker. The bank therefore owed a duty of care to disclose material information known to it. The bank breached this duty by failing to disclose the 1989 valuation report before the change of insurers, and this breach caused delay in...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on damages noted.

Orders

  • Inquiry as to damages and account of sum due from claimant to bank to proceed
  • Stay on further proceedings pending appeal lifted