The Federal Republic of Nigeria v JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA

The Federal Republic of Nigeria v JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA

The depository agreement did not exclude or modify the Quincecare duty of care, which arises by law and/or statute and/or in tort. The claimant has a realistic prospect of establishing causation of loss, and the indemnity clause does not create a circularity defence. Therefore, the application for summary judgment and striking out fails.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Federal Republic of Nigeria; Defendant/applicant: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Striking Out
Outcome
Application for summary judgment and striking out dismissed
Legal Topics
Quincecare Duty of Care, Summary Judgment, Contractual Interpretation, Bank Liability for Fraud, Indemnity Clauses, Exclusion Clauses
Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Quincecare Duty of Care Summary Judgment Contractual Interpretation Bank Liability for Fraud Indemnity Clauses +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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federal Republic of Nigeria

Claimant/respondent

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N. A.

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Quincecare duty of care was excluded or inconsistent with the depository agreement
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a realistic prospect of establishing causation of loss
  3. 3 Whether the indemnity clause in the depository agreement creates a circularity defence

Ratio Decidendi

The depository agreement did not exclude or modify the Quincecare duty of care, which arises by law and/or statute and/or in tort. The claimant has a realistic prospect of establishing causation of loss, and the indemnity clause does not create a circularity defence. Therefore, the application for summary judgment and striking out fails.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment and striking out dismissed

Orders

  • Application for reverse summary judgment under CPR 24.2 is dismissed
  • Application to strike out under CPR 3.4(2) is dismissed