Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Banking and Finance Law
- Contract Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Tidal Energy Limited case revolves around the misdirection of funds due to fraudulent banking details, raising the issue of whether a bank can debit a customer's account when funds are sent to an account with correct numerical identifiers but a mismatched beneficiary name. The initial judgment favored the Bank of Scotland, rejecting Tidal's claim. Upon appeal, the court ultimately sided with Tidal, highlighting that such debits are not authorized unless all identifiers, including the beneficiary name, match. Lord Justice Tomlinson and the Master of the Rolls provided differing opinions, with Tomlinson initially inclined towards the bank but ultimately agreeing with Tidal.
J U D G M E N T
1. LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: This is an application for a costs capping order under CPR 3.19. The application was originally put under CPR 52.9A as well but, in my judgment, that order does not apply because these are not proceedings to which costs recovery are normally limited or excluded at first instance. That interpretation has recently been adopted by this court in JE (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192 . I need therefore say no more about that provision of the CPR, the conclusion which my Lord, Jackson LJ, reached would have been the interpretation I would have placed on it in any event.
2. However I must look in more detail at CPR 3.19. This is a new provision which enables a court to make a costs capping order at any time to limit the amount of future costs including disbursements which a party may recover pursuant to an order with the court which is subsequently made.
3. Paragraph 5 of CPR 3.19 provides as follows:
"(5) The court may at any stage of proceedings make a costs capping order against all or any of the parties, if –
(a) it is in the interests of justice to do so;
(b) there is a substantial risk that without such an order costs will be disproportionately incurred; and
(c) it is not satisfied that the risk in subparagraph (b) can be adequately controlled by –
(i) case management directions or orders made under this Part; and
(ii) detailed assessment of costs."
4. This application is made in an appeal brought by Tidal Energy Ltd which is, if I may put it this way, a start up company in the wave energy industry, against a very substantial bank out of the "payment" of a sum of £217, 781.57 via CHAPS which unfortunately arrived in the wrong account holder's account and which was immediately removed and cannot be returned.
5. The case turns on the interpretation of a standard form of CHAPS transfer which was signed by an officer of Tidal Energy. Permission to appeal was granted by Lewison LJ on 6th November 2013 and I note that he in his reasons stated that this was an important point of practice to be resolved. But at the end of the day the point is in private litigation about the interpretation of a document, signed by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The action was tried by His Honour Judge Havelock-Allen QC and by his order of 6th November 2013 he dismissed the claim for repayment of the sum which I have mentioned.
6. On this appeal the bank proposes to be repre