Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali
BCCI v Ali | |
---|---|
Court | UK House of Lords |
Full case name | Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan and Others |
Decided | 1 March 2001 |
Citation | [2001] UKHL 8; [2001] 1 All ER 961; [2001] 2 WLR 735 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hoffmann Lord Clyde |
Keywords | |
Contractual terms, contra proferentem |
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali [2001] UKHL 8 is an English contract law case in the House of Lords on the limits of freedom of contract, and the contra proferentem principle.
Facts
[edit]Mr Naaem, an employee of BCCI SA, claimed damages for economic loss after not having been able to find a job following his redundancy in 1990. BCCI, once the world's 7th largest bank, had gone insolvent after mass fraud because of the stigma. However, Naaem and other employees had signed a release form saying the redundancy pay was ‘in full and final settlement of any claims... of whatsoever nature that exist or may exist’. BCCI argued Naaem was bound.
Judgment
[edit]The House of Lords by a majority held that because the exposure of fraud would not have been contemplated when Mr Naeem signed, the release did not actually, despite the words, excluded a stigma damages claim.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2017) |
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v. Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan and Others [2001] UKHL 8 (1 March 2001)