authorised push payment

The Court held that banks do not owe this duty to customers deceived into instructing their banks to transfer money to fraudsters.

By Nell Perks and Callum Rodgers

On 12 July 2023, the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated judgment in Philipp v. Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25, allowing the appeal brought by Barclays Bank UK PLC (Barclays).

The Court’s decision, which resolved longstanding questions about the nature of the Quincecare duty, clarified that the Quincecare duty only arises in cases in which there is fraud by an agent acting for the customer. As a result, it cannot apply in circumstances in which the relevant payment was authorised by the bank’s customer directly, so it has no application in APP fraud cases. The Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had expressly held that that it is “at least possible in principle” that the Quincecare duty could apply to a “victim of APP fraud” on the basis that the Quincecare duty “does not depend on the fact that the bank is instructed by an agent of the customer of the bank”. [1]