AF Kopp Limited v HSBC UK Bank PLC

AF Kopp Limited v HSBC UK Bank PLC

Summary judgment and strike out are refused because the reasonableness of clause 32 under UCTA is a triable issue requiring factual investigation. Security for costs is ordered as the litigation is for the benefit of third parties and there is no evidence the claim would be stifled by such an order.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: A. F. Kopp Limited; Defendant/applicant: HSBC UK Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Banking Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for summary judgment and strike out dismissed; application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Remoteness of Damages, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Security for Costs, Summary Judgment, Agency Liability
Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Exclusion Clauses Remoteness of Damages Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Security for Costs Summary Judgment +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. F. Kopp Limited

Claimant/respondent

HSBC UK Bank PLC

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Banking Dispute / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 32 of the defendant's business banking terms excludes liability for the losses claimed
  2. 2 Whether clause 32 satisfies the requirement of reasonableness under s.3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether the losses claimed are direct or indirect/consequential

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment and strike out are refused because the reasonableness of clause 32 under UCTA is a triable issue requiring factual investigation. Security for costs is ordered as the litigation is for the benefit of third parties and there is no evidence the claim would be stifled by such an order.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment and strike out dismissed; application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £40,000 (VAT-exclusive) up to the costs and case management hearing.
  • Parties to agree a substantive order including provision for costs; if not, submit draft composite order and brief written submissions.