Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 122 (Comm) (03 February 2004)

Customs & Excise v Barclays Bank Plc [2004] EWHC 122 (Comm) (03 February 2004)

A bank served with a freezing injunction does not owe a duty of care in negligence to the claimant for pure economic loss resulting from payments out of the debtor's account in breach of the order. The relationship lacks sufficient proximity, and the bank's duty is owed to the court, not to the claimant. The only...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 122 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise; Defendant: Barclays Bank Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Damages in Negligence / Preliminary Issue Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; no duty of care found.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Contempt of Court
Negligence Banking Law Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Duty of Care Economic Loss Contempt of Court

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Claimant

Barclays Bank Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Damages in Negligence / Preliminary Issue Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bank owes a duty of care to a claimant who has obtained a freezing injunction served on the bank to prevent payments out of a debtor's account.
  2. 2 Whether breach of a freezing injunction by a bank gives rise to a claim in negligence for pure economic loss.

Ratio Decidendi

A bank served with a freezing injunction does not owe a duty of care in negligence to the claimant for pure economic loss resulting from payments out of the debtor's account in breach of the order. The relationship lacks sufficient proximity, and the bank's duty is owed to the court, not to the claimant. The only remedy for breach is contempt proceedings, not a claim in negligence.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; no duty of care found.

Orders

  • No damages awarded to claimants.
  • Claimants limited to contempt proceedings as remedy for breach of freezing injunction.