Lancore Services Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc

Lancore Services Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc

Barclays was contractually entitled to withhold payment to Lancore under the MSA because Lancore engaged in unauthorised third party processing and the transactions were for illegal sales of prescription drugs. The withholding provisions were not penalties, nor subject to relief against forfeiture, and no fiduciary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Lancore Services Limited; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for return of security deposit
Legal Topics
Merchant Services Agreement, Third Party Card Processing, Illegality in Contract, Withholding of Payments, Penalty Clauses, Relief Against Forfeiture, Unjust Enrichment
Contract Law Banking Law Commercial Law Merchant Services Agreement Third Party Card Processing Illegality in Contract Withholding of Payments Penalty Clauses +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lancore Services Limited

Claimant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Barclays was entitled to withhold payments to Lancore under the Merchant Services Agreement (MSA) for alleged unauthorised third party processing and illegal transactions.
  2. 2 Whether Lancore was in breach of the MSA by processing third party transactions and/or illegal transactions.
  3. 3 Whether the withholding provisions in the MSA were unenforceable as penalties or subject to relief against forfeiture.

Ratio Decidendi

Barclays was contractually entitled to withhold payment to Lancore under the MSA because Lancore engaged in unauthorised third party processing and the transactions were for illegal sales of prescription drugs. The withholding provisions were not penalties, nor subject to relief against forfeiture, and no fiduciary or restitutionary claim arose. Lancore was only entitled to the return of its security deposit, as no contractual or equitable right to the withheld funds existed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for return of security deposit

Orders

  • Lancore's claim for withheld card payments is dismissed.
  • Barclays to return the security deposit of £36,000 (plus interest) to Lancore.