[2010] EWCA Civ 31

Where a customer brought an ordinary non-summary action against his bank for damages flowing from its failure to carry out his instructions, and the bank relied on an authorised disclosure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 , there was no reason why it ought not to be put to proof, at trial, of its suspicion that the sums involved were criminal property. It was not enough for the bank simply to adduce a witness statement by its solicitor attesting to its suspicion and to expect to obtain summary judgment.

CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Longmore LJ, Lloyd LJ)


0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar