So v HSBC Bank Plc & Anor

So v HSBC Bank Plc & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because, although HSBC owed a duty of care not to misrepresent its acceptance of the LoI and was vicariously liable for Mrs Arnull’s carelessness, the trial judge was entitled to find that there was no causative link between any breach of duty by HSBC and the loss suffered by Mr So and Mrs Lu. The loss was caused by reliance on assurances from third parties about a joint account, not on HSBC’s representations. Further, no duty arose to respond to Mr So’s Enquiry Letter or to handle the SWIFT transfer as alleged. New claims were not permitted at the appellate stage.

Parties
Appellant: Kevin So; Respondent: HSBC Bank plc; Respondent: Lucy Yan Lu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Misrepresentation, Banking Practice, Fraud
Banking Law Tort Law Contract Law Negligent Misstatement Vicarious Liability Duty of Care Causation Misrepresentation +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin So

Appellant

HSBC Bank plc

Respondent

Lucy Yan Lu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HSBC owed a duty of care to Mr So and Mrs Lu in relation to representations made by stamping and signing the Letter of Instruction (LoI) and issuing the Reference Letter.
  2. 2 Whether HSBC was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Mrs Arnull.
  3. 3 Whether there was causation between any breach of duty by HSBC and the loss suffered by Mr So and Mrs Lu.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, although HSBC owed a duty of care not to misrepresent its acceptance of the LoI and was vicariously liable for Mrs Arnull’s carelessness, the trial judge was entitled to find that there was no causative link between any breach of duty by HSBC and the loss suffered by Mr So and Mrs Lu. The loss was caused by reliance on assurances from third parties about a joint account, not on HSBC’s representations. Further, no duty arose to respond to Mr So’s Enquiry Letter or to handle the SWIFT transfer as alleged. New claims were not permitted at the appellate stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed