Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank Plc

Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank Plc

A bank served with a freezing injunction does not, by that fact alone or by standard acknowledgement letters sent after the relevant payments, assume responsibility or owe a duty of care in negligence to the party obtaining the injunction to prevent payments out of the relevant accounts. Absent timely conduct amounting to an assumption of responsibility before the loss, no such duty arises; the claimant's remedy is limited to contempt proceedings, not damages in negligence.

Parties
Claimant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise; Defendant: Barclays Bank Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Court) / Preliminary Issue on Duty of Care in Negligence
Outcome
Claim dismissed (preliminary issue determined in favour of the defendant)
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Duty of Care, Negligence, Pure Economic Loss, Assumption of Responsibility
Banking Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Freezing Injunctions Duty of Care Negligence Pure Economic Loss Assumption of Responsibility

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 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Claimant

Barclays Bank Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Court) / Preliminary Issue on Duty of Care in Negligence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bank served with a freezing injunction owes a duty of care in negligence to the party obtaining the injunction to prevent payments out of the relevant accounts
  2. 2 Whether the bank's acknowledgement of the injunction constitutes an assumption of responsibility giving rise to such a duty

Ratio Decidendi

A bank served with a freezing injunction does not, by that fact alone or by standard acknowledgement letters sent after the relevant payments, assume responsibility or owe a duty of care in negligence to the party obtaining the injunction to prevent payments out of the relevant accounts. Absent timely conduct amounting to an assumption of responsibility before the loss, no such duty arises; the claimant's remedy is limited to contempt proceedings, not damages in negligence.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (preliminary issue determined in favour of the defendant)

Orders

  • No duty of care in negligence owed by the bank to the Commissioners on the pleaded facts
  • Claim for damages in negligence fails