Frontier Systems Ltd (t/a Voiceflex) v Frip Finishing Ltd [2014] EWHC 1907 (TCC) (10 June 2014)

Frontier Systems Ltd (t/a Voiceflex) v Frip Finishing Ltd [2014] EWHC 1907 (TCC) (10 June 2014)

Frip is not liable for the cost of calls made by unknown third parties as a result of fraudulent activity, as the contract only imposes liability for calls actually made by the customer and no breach of contract by Frip was established. The evidence showed Frip used a sufficiently robust password and there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1907 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Frontier Systems Ltd Trading as Voiceflex; Defendant: Frip Finishing Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Use of Telephony Services, Implied Terms, Billing Accuracy, Liability for Third Party Actions
Contract Law Telecommunications Law Breach of Contract Fraudulent Use of Telephony Services Implied Terms Billing Accuracy Liability for Third Party Actions

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frontier Systems Ltd Trading as Voiceflex

Claimant

Frip Finishing Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Frip liable to pay for fraudulent calls made by unknown third parties via its telephony system?
  2. 2 Did Frip breach express or implied contractual terms regarding system security and password protection?
  3. 3 Does Ofcom General Condition 11 or section 104 of the Communications Act 2003 affect liability for fraudulent calls?

Ratio Decidendi

Frip is not liable for the cost of calls made by unknown third parties as a result of fraudulent activity, as the contract only imposes liability for calls actually made by the customer and no breach of contract by Frip was established. The evidence showed Frip used a sufficiently robust password and there was no proof of failure to secure the network or hardware. General Condition 11 does not shift liability for fraudulent calls to the service provider.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant