Commercial Court rules on the scope of a bank’s duty following Philipp v Barclays

20/11/25

On 19 November 2025, Mr Justice Butcher handed down judgment in Arena Television Ltd and Arena Holdings Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc and Lloyds Bank Plc and Sentinel Broadcast Limited v Lloyds Bank Plc [2025] EWHC 3036 (Comm).  This is one of the first judgments to consider what were previously described as ‘Quincecare claims’ following the Supreme Court’s decision in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2024] AC 346.

Both sets of proceedings arise out of what the claimants contend to have been a major asset-financing fraud against multiple lenders.  That fraud having come to light, the claimants now allege that the Banks are liable to reconstitute payments out of their accounts dating back almost 20 years, alternatively to pay damages for alleged breach of their duty of care.  On the face of the pleadings, the two claims are together said to be worth more than £1.3 billion.  

The Banks and the Arena Claimants each advanced applications for summary judgment and strike out on certain issues, which were argued over a four day hearing in October 2025.

The Banks succeeded in their application for strike out or summary judgment in relation to the claim advanced by the Arena Claimants for damages representing the difference between the Arena Claimants’ liability to lenders as at a date in 2008 or 2009 and their liability to lenders upon their administration.  Applying the scope of duty principle set out in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton [2022] AC 783 and Meadows v Khan [2022] AC 852, and Lord Leggatt’s reasoning in Philipp v Barclays, Butcher J held that in the normal case the purpose of the bank’s duty is to avoid the making of unauthorised payments.  That would entail potential liability on the part of the bank for the amount of such unauthorised payments.  It might further extend to losses consequential on the making of those payments such as interest, overdraft fees or currency losses.  The scope of the duty does not, however, extend to protecting the customer against payments out of the account which were authorised, even if those payments would not have been made had the bank ceased to permit the operation of the account pending the completion of inquiries as to a suspectedly unauthorised payment. Nor does it extend to the consequences of transactions with others into which the customer entered, but which it would not have been able to enter into had the bank ceased to permit the operation of the account because there were grounds to suspect that there might be unauthorised payment instructions.

In relation to the Banks’ defence to the Claimants’ claims for reconstitution of their accounts based on the actual authority of the relevant individuals, the Court ruled against both the Banks’ application for summary judgment and the Arena Claimants’ application to strike out the defence, holding that the issues raised should be determined at trial.

The Court also ruled that the Banks’ contingent counterclaims in deceit and unlawful means conspiracy could not be struck out or disposed of summarily, and should go to trial.  In particular, Butcher J left open the argument that where the claimant is a ‘one-man company’, Baroness Hale’s reasoning in Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Ltd [2020] AC 1189 will not apply.

The judgment can be read here.