The Doctrinal Basis Of Liability
Contents
Introduction 3
1. Doctrinal bases of liability 4
1.1. Reasonable Care and Skill . 4
1.2. Fiduciary Law 5
1.3. Knowing Receipt, Inconsistent Dealing, and Assistance 6
1.4. Emerging Standard: Due Diligence, Suitability, Good Faith 7
2. Duty to advise and the liability for the advice given 8
2.1. Duty to advise 8, 9
2.2. Liability for advice given 10
Referencing 12
Introduction In this report I defined the duties and liabilities of a Banker under Advisory and Transactional liability in Banking Law. My discussions include the doctrinal bases of liability, duty to advice and the liability for the advice given. Also, I stated the various important cases such as Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964), Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank (1986), Woods v Martins Bank Ltd (1959), Barnes v Addy (1874), Cornish v Midland Bank plc (1985), Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien (1994), Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (2001) and cited the decisions of these decided cases.
1. Doctrinal bases of liability
There are three areas of doctrine of importance to banks. The first concerns the general standard of care the law expects, once a duty of care has been established, whether that be in contract, tort, or fiduciary law. Then the potential liability of a bank is explored as a fiduciary, constructive trustee, or an accessory. Finally, there is brief mention of some emerging standards of liability which have primarily a statutory base.
1. 1. Reasonable Care and Skill
A duty of reasonable care and skill for anyone providing a service (including giving advice) runs through contract, tort, and fiduciary law.
After a mass of conflicting case law, notably the challenge to concurrent liability in contract and tort posed by the banking case, Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank (1986), it is now settled that a claimant may seek compensation for economic loss caused through the
Introduction 3
1. Doctrinal bases of liability 4
1.1. Reasonable Care and Skill . 4
1.2. Fiduciary Law 5
1.3. Knowing Receipt, Inconsistent Dealing, and Assistance 6
1.4. Emerging Standard: Due Diligence, Suitability, Good Faith 7
2. Duty to advise and the liability for the advice given 8
2.1. Duty to advise 8, 9
2.2. Liability for advice given 10
Referencing 12
Introduction In this report I defined the duties and liabilities of a Banker under Advisory and Transactional liability in Banking Law. My discussions include the doctrinal bases of liability, duty to advice and the liability for the advice given. Also, I stated the various important cases such as Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964), Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank (1986), Woods v Martins Bank Ltd (1959), Barnes v Addy (1874), Cornish v Midland Bank plc (1985), Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien (1994), Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (2001) and cited the decisions of these decided cases.
1. Doctrinal bases of liability
There are three areas of doctrine of importance to banks. The first concerns the general standard of care the law expects, once a duty of care has been established, whether that be in contract, tort, or fiduciary law. Then the potential liability of a bank is explored as a fiduciary, constructive trustee, or an accessory. Finally, there is brief mention of some emerging standards of liability which have primarily a statutory base.
1. 1. Reasonable Care and Skill
A duty of reasonable care and skill for anyone providing a service (including giving advice) runs through contract, tort, and fiduciary law.
After a mass of conflicting case law, notably the challenge to concurrent liability in contract and tort posed by the banking case, Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank (1986), it is now settled that a claimant may seek compensation for economic loss caused through the