The Quincecare duty has become a popular tool
for companies (or their liquidators) to claim against banks for
funds misappropriated on wrongful payment instructions. It requires
a bank to refrain from executing a payment order if and for so long
as it was put on inquiry by having reasonable grounds for believing
that the order was an attempt to misappropriate funds. The duty was
established in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare
Ltd1 and endorsed by the UK Supreme Court
("UKSC") in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation)
v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd2 .
In 2022 and 2023, the UKSC and Privy Council delivered judgments
and heard appeal in respect of the scope of the Quincecare
duty. In JP SPC 4 v Royal Bank of Scotland International
Ltd3 , the Privy Council confirmed that the
Quincecare duty is limited to protecting the bank's
customer and does not extend to a beneficial owner of the monies in
the customer's account. In Stanford International Bank Ltd
(in