Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England: Difference between revisions
Legalskeptic (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary Tag: extraneous markup |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''Tournier v [[National Provincial Bank|National Provincial and Union Bank of England]]''''' [1924] 1 KB 461 was a landmark legal case in the [[United Kingdom]]. The lead decision was given by [[John Eldon Bankes|Bankes LJ]]. |
<ref></ref>'''''Tournier v [[National Provincial Bank|National Provincial and Union Bank of England]]''''' [1924] 1 KB 461 was a landmark legal case in the [[United Kingdom]]. The lead decision was given by [[John Eldon Bankes|Bankes LJ]]. |
||
id=4ijkMxfmZg8C&pg=PA22&dq=Tournier+v+National+Provincial+and+Union+Bank+of+England&client=firefox-a | page = 22}}</ref> |
|||
It established the conditions under which banks owed confidentiality to their clients, allowing four circumstances wherein banks were not required to guard privacy: where compelled by (1) law, (2) public duty, (3) the interest of the bank, or (4) where the client had consented, even implicitly, to disclosure.<ref>{{cite book | first = Mary Michelle | last = Gallant | title = Money Laundering and the Proceeds of Crime: Economic Crime and Civil Remedies | publisher = Edward Elgar Publishing | year = 2005 | isbn = 1843769514 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4ijkMxfmZg8C&pg=PA22&dq=Tournier+v+National+Provincial+and+Union+Bank+of+England&client=firefox-a | page = 22}}</ref> |
|||
In this case the bank disclosed to its customer's employer the fact that one of the customer's unpaid cheques was drawn in favour of a bookmaker's account. As a result, the customer's employer did not renew his contract with the customer. The [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] held that confidentiality was an implied term in the customer's contract and that any breach could give rise to liability in damages if loss results. |
In this case the bank disclosed to its customer's employer the fact that one of the customer's unpaid cheques was drawn in favour of a bookmaker's account. As a result, the customer's employer did not renew his contract with the customer. The [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] held that confidentiality was an implied term in the customer's contract and that any breach could give rise to liability in damages if loss results. |
||
Revision as of 09:46, 7 January 2019
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461 was a landmark legal case in the United Kingdom. The lead decision was given by Bankes LJ.
id=4ijkMxfmZg8C&pg=PA22&dq=Tournier+v+National+Provincial+and+Union+Bank+of+England&client=firefox-a | page = 22}}</ref>
In this case the bank disclosed to its customer's employer the fact that one of the customer's unpaid cheques was drawn in favour of a bookmaker's account. As a result, the customer's employer did not renew his contract with the customer. The Court of Appeal held that confidentiality was an implied term in the customer's contract and that any breach could give rise to liability in damages if loss results.