Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 JULY 2006

A Freeze on Duties of Care?

The House of Lords this week delivered an important judgment in HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc (21 June 2006) in which the issue was whether a bank, notified by a third party of a freezing order against one of the bank's customers, owes a duty of care to the third party to comply with the terms of the order.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Andrew Howell
Andrew Howell
Lisa Collins
Lisa Collins

The House of Lords this week delivered an important judgment in HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc (21 June 2006) in which the issue was whether a bank, notified by a third party of a freezing order against one of the bank's customers, owes a duty of care to the third party to comply with the terms of the order.

The Court of Appeal's judgment in 2004 ruled that Barclays Bank plc ("the Bank") was liable to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise ("the Commissioners"), for negligently making payments notwithstanding a freezing order. It was a judgment which left the door open to the possibility of very large claims against any party served with a freezing order. The House of Lords has now overturned that judgment.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from