• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

National Westminster Bank plc (Respondents) v. Spectrum Plus Limited and others 2005

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • National Westminster Bank plc (Respondents) v. Spectrum Plus Limited and others 2005

    just interesting and maybe useful at some point sometime

    from House of Lords Judgement Opinions - National Westminster Bank plc (Respondents) v. Spectrum Plus Limited and others and others (Appellants) 2005

    59. As May LJ said in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 1340, 1353, the money which a customer deposits with a bank becomes the bank's money, but the bank is prima facie bound to meet its debt when called upon to do so by the customer. In Westminster Bank Ltd v Hilton (1926) 43 TLR 124, 126 Lord Atkinson explained the relationship in this way:
    • "It is well established that the normal relation between a banker and his customer is that of debtor and creditor, but it is equally well established that quoad the drawing and payment of the customer's cheques as against money of the customer's in the banker's hands the relation is that of principal and agent. The cheque is an order of the principal's addressed to the agent to pay out of the principal's money in the agent's hands the amount of the cheque to the payee thereof."

    The general rule is that a banker is bound to honour his customer's cheque so long as he has funds in his hands if the account is in credit, or up to the agreed limit of any overdraft. He may determine the contract at any time on giving notice to the customer. But he cannot refuse to honour cheques drawn before the notice of determination is received.


    60. A banker has a general lien over all bills, notes and negotiable instruments belonging to the customer which his customer may have deposited with him in security of the customer's indebtedness to the bank. But a lien is a right to retain possession of property that belongs to someone else, and the banker has no lien over funds which, when deposited in its account by the customer, become his own property. Moreover the relationship is one where, if the account is in credit, the banker is indebted to his customer. So it was a misuse of the word lien to say that the bank could assert a right of that kind over the proceeds: see Buckley LJ in the Court of Appeal in Halesowen Presswork and Assemblies Ltd v Westminster Bank Ltd [1971] 1 QB 1, 46, and Viscount Dilhorne and Lord Cross of Chelsea in the same case in the House of Lords [1972] AC 785; Lord Hoffmann in In re Bank of Credit and Commerce International S A (No 8) [1998] AC 214, 226. This is not to say that it is impossible to conceive of the creation of an equitable charge over the proceeds of book debts paid into an account in the name the chargor. But the ordinary relationship of banker and customer does not permit the banker, without notice, to refuse to allow his customer to operate a current account as and whenever he wishes while it is credit or is within the limits of any agreed overdraft. The debenture in the Siebe Gorman case, which provided for the payment of the proceeds into an account of that kind,lacked any provision which qualified that relationship.
    #staysafestayhome

    Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

  • #2
    Re: National Westminster Bank plc (Respondents) v. Spectrum Plus Limited and others 2

    Ame, does this mean institutes governed by the laws of the u.k, could be challenged for irresponsive lending, as per question, if the home being worth £100K, and the sub prime mortgage lender, lending 125% of the mortgage value, could the lender be irrisponsible, for the lender exceeding that of the lenders affordable amounts?
    With lending, the amount of interest payable is set by their credit scoring, and the product value, if the mortgage lender A, offers me 3.5% over base rate (because of my current credit score), also governed by the LIBBOR interest rate, surely they have covered all their options, making any extra additions purely an excepceptable risk, putting the debitor in a position of control, putting the debitor at further risk not explained in the full terms and conditions, therefore making them implied terms, and subject to the UTCR's?
    there must be a level when the lender takes extra risk, this risk must surely be covered by statute, and other laws

    Comment

    View our Terms and Conditions

    LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

    If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


    If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
    Working...
    X