David McIlroy explores the Supreme Court decision in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2019] UKSC 50 and considers its implications for Authorised Push Payment Fraud claims.
This case analysis looks at the extent of a bank’s Quincecare duty, the ability to attribute the dishonesty of the controlling mind in a ‘one-man company’ to the company itself, and the voluntary Contingent Reimbursement Model Code for Authorised Push Payment Scams.
You can download David’s case analysis here.
