Financial Services Disputes and Regulation
Jun 18, 2026 · 24 min · 9 segments
In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John…
John CorrieHostCeri MorganHostElina KyselchukGuest
A case that deserves to open our discussion today is the High Court's recent decision in Al Yassin and Starling Bank, which is the case about bank account closures and financial crime concerns.
And indeed, the debanking trend has gathered real momentum over the last few years, particularly after being thrust into into the public spotlight by a series of high-profile scandals prompting the FCA to launch a formal review of account closure practices.
So this decision caught my attention too, John, particularly for what it means for banks and financial institutions in navigating the fine line between customer treatment and complying with their anti-money laundering obligations.
Look, at its core, the High Court dismissed a former customer's application for an interim mandatory injunction to prevent the respondent bank, Starling Bank, from closing his personal current accounts.
The court concluded that the bank was contractually entitled to terminate those accounts without notice where it suspected that they were being used for criminal or fraudulent purposes.
So can you walk us through how the claim was framed and what the customer was actually arguing?
And what's quite interesting is I suspect this turns, as many of these cases will, on the T's and C's.
The claimant, Mr. Alyassin, bought the claim on the basis of a breach of contract and breach of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability.
So Mr. Alyassin also brought an allegation, made an allegation that Starling Bank had provided false or misleading information to another bank, Halifax, where he had attempted to open an alternative account and had been refused there as well.
Under Starling's T's and C's, the bank had not given sufficient notice to close the account.
Critically, though, the terms also contained separate provision allowing immediate termination without notice where the bank's spectre an account was being used for criminal or fraudulent purposes.
And that second provision, that sort of catch-all, ultimately became the crux of the case.
The bank had received information from the National Crime Agency, the NCA, indicating that a Suspicious Activity Report, or SAR, had been submitted in relation to the account.
And the court accepted that evidence as sufficient to engage the termination of the without notice provision.
I imagine the disclosing a SAR in civil proceedings must have presented some serious compliance difficulties for the bank.
A case that deserves to open our discussion today is the High Court's recent decision in Al Yassin and Starling Bank, which is the case about bank account closures and financial crime concerns.
And indeed, the debanking trend has gathered real momentum over the last few years, particularly after being thrust into into the public spotlight by a series of high-profile scandals prompting the FCA to launch a formal review of account closure practices.
So this decision caught my attention too, John, particularly for what it means for banks and financial institutions in navigating the fine line between customer treatment and complying with their anti-money laundering obligations.
Look, at its core, the High Court dismissed a former customer's application for an interim mandatory injunction to prevent the respondent bank, Starling Bank, from closing his personal current accounts.
The court concluded that the bank was contractually entitled to terminate those accounts without notice where it suspected that they were being used for criminal or fraudulent purposes.
So can you walk us through how the claim was framed and what the customer was actually arguing?
And what's quite interesting is I suspect this turns, as many of these cases will, on the T's and C's.
The claimant, Mr. Alyassin, bought the claim on the basis of a breach of contract and breach of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments for his disability.
So Mr. Alyassin also brought an allegation, made an allegation that Starling Bank had provided false or misleading information to another bank, Halifax, where he had attempted to open an alternative account and had been refused there as well.
Under Starling's T's and C's, the bank had not given sufficient notice to close the account.
Critically, though, the terms also contained separate provision allowing immediate termination without notice where the bank's spectre an account was being used for criminal or fraudulent purposes.
And that second provision, that sort of catch-all, ultimately became the crux of the case.
The bank had received information from the National Crime Agency, the NCA, indicating that a Suspicious Activity Report, or SAR, had been submitted in relation to the account.
And the court accepted that evidence as sufficient to engage the termination of the without notice provision.
I imagine the disclosing a SAR in civil proceedings must have presented some serious compliance difficulties for the bank.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.