Financial Services Disputes and Regulation
Sep 14, 2026 · 29 min · 12 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 MorganHost
Alexander GridasovGuestSo today I'll be picking up on a development that marks a novel spin on the traditional quince care duty claim, by which, of course, I mean the duty to act with reasonable skill and care when processing customer payment instructions.
And I'm referring to the case of Hamlin and Moorwand in which a payment services provider or PSP appealed against the High Court's decision that it breached its so-called quince care duty in a derivative action brought by the victims of an authorised push payment or APP fraud.
If I recall correctly, we covered the High Court's decision in a previous episode.
And what was particularly striking was how the claimants brought that derivative action against the PSP.
In other words, they brought a claim in the name of the PSP's own corporate customer rather than in their own right.
And that procedural mechanism is really at the heart of why this case is so significant.
So Mr and Mrs Hamlin were induced by a fraudster to transfer... £160,000 into an electronic wallet held by a corporate entity.
So that company was R&D and the electronic wallet was held with the defendant PSP.
Now, crucially, because the Hamlins had authorised the payment themselves, as victims of an APP fraud typically do, they could not bring a straightforward quince care claim directly against their own bank.
That avenue was effectively closed off by the Supreme Court's decision in Philip and Barclay's, which confirmed that the general duty of reasonable skill and care when processing payments does not arise in an APP fraud context, precisely because the payment mandate is validly given by the victim.
So instead, the Hamlins brought a derivative action, that is, a claim brought in the name of R&D, the defendant PSP's corporate customer, on the basis that R&D held the transferred funds on constructive trust for them.
So rather than suing the receiving PESP directly, the Hamblins stepped into R&D's shoes to assert R&D's own Quinn's Care claim against its own bank.
So at first instance, permission to bring the derivative action was granted, though the claim itself was dismissed.
And then on appeal, the High Court overturned that dismissal, finding that the PSP had breached its quince care duty by failing to take the necessary steps and inquiries before paying away the funds and ordered restoration of the £160,000 to R&D's account.
Critically, the PSP did not appeal the derivative permission decision, leaving the legal basis for bringing a derivative action of this kind untested by the appellate courts and an unhelpful gap for the industry.
So today I'll be picking up on a development that marks a novel spin on the traditional quince care duty claim, by which, of course, I mean the duty to act with reasonable skill and care when processing customer payment instructions.
And I'm referring to the case of Hamlin and Moorwand in which a payment services provider or PSP appealed against the High Court's decision that it breached its so-called quince care duty in a derivative action brought by the victims of an authorised push payment or APP fraud.
If I recall correctly, we covered the High Court's decision in a previous episode.
And what was particularly striking was how the claimants brought that derivative action against the PSP.
In other words, they brought a claim in the name of the PSP's own corporate customer rather than in their own right.
And that procedural mechanism is really at the heart of why this case is so significant.
So Mr and Mrs Hamlin were induced by a fraudster to transfer... £160,000 into an electronic wallet held by a corporate entity.
So that company was R&D and the electronic wallet was held with the defendant PSP.
Now, crucially, because the Hamlins had authorised the payment themselves, as victims of an APP fraud typically do, they could not bring a straightforward quince care claim directly against their own bank.
That avenue was effectively closed off by the Supreme Court's decision in Philip and Barclay's, which confirmed that the general duty of reasonable skill and care when processing payments does not arise in an APP fraud context, precisely because the payment mandate is validly given by the victim.
So instead, the Hamlins brought a derivative action, that is, a claim brought in the name of R&D, the defendant PSP's corporate customer, on the basis that R&D held the transferred funds on constructive trust for them.
So rather than suing the receiving PESP directly, the Hamblins stepped into R&D's shoes to assert R&D's own Quinn's Care claim against its own bank.
So at first instance, permission to bring the derivative action was granted, though the claim itself was dismissed.
And then on appeal, the High Court overturned that dismissal, finding that the PSP had breached its quince care duty by failing to take the necessary steps and inquiries before paying away the funds and ordered restoration of the £160,000 to R&D's account.
Critically, the PSP did not appeal the derivative permission decision, leaving the legal basis for bringing a derivative action of this kind untested by the appellate courts and an unhelpful gap for the industry.
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.
