Joseph Gerald Lapperton (Plaintiff v Martin Patrick McGeever (Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE LLOYD,MRS. JUSTICE BOOTH |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1990 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1990] EWCA Civ J0207-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 90/0089 |
| Date | 07 February 1990 |
[1990] EWCA Civ J0207-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE ALLIOT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Lloyd
and
Mrs. Justice Booth
90/0089
1988 L No.3741
MR. T. CARLISLE (instructed by Messrs. Hills, Solicitors, London, WC2B 5AA) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Appellant).
MR. GUY PHILLIPPS (instructed by Messrs. Freedman Neifield, Solicitors, London, WlV 9HF) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Respondent).
This is an appeal from a judgment of Alliott J. giving the plaintiff, Joseph Gerald Lapperton, judgment under 0.14 in the sum of £10,00. The plaintiff's claim is on a cheque for that amount drawn in his favour by the defendant, Martin Patrick McGeever. The cheque is dated 25th November 1988 and is drawn on the defendant's account at Barclays Bank, 153 Chiswick High Road, London, W4.
According to the defendant's evidence the plaintiff was in dire financial straits at the end of November 1988. He prevailed upon the defendant to lend him the money until 9th December, so as to tide him over. The loan was to be without interest. He handed over the cheque late on Friday 25th November. He immediately regretted what he had done. On the Saturday morning he telephoned the bank to stop the cheque. But the plaintiff had already presented it over the counter. The sum of £10,000 was credited to his newly opened account at the same branch of Barclays Bank. The credit entry appears in the plaintiff's account on Monday 28th November. The debit entry appears in the defendant's account on the same day. On the following day, 29th November, the entries were reversed. It was said by the bank that the entries had been made under a mistake of fact.
The substantive defence to the claim is that there was no consideration for the cheque. Alternatively, it is said that the cheque was never in fact dishonoured, since it was paid on 28th November, when the relevant entries were made in the two accounts.
The alternative defence may be thought to sound ill in the mouth of the defendant, since he did his best to countermand payment. The question remains, however, whether the cheque was in fact dishonoured by being countermanded, as alleged in the statement of claim.
Mr. Phillipps, who appears for the plaintiff, says that the cheque was clearly dishonoured since the relevant entries were made without the authority of the plaintiff. He submits that the countermand was effective. In that connection he relies on certain passages from the decision of Robert Goff J. in Barclays Bank Limited v. Simms, [1981] Queen's Bench 677.
But even if he is wrong about that, I do not see how it helps the defendant. The plaintiff's claim would then lie, not on the cheque, but against Barclays Bank for wrongfully reversing the entries on 29th November. On that view the bank would appear to have an unanswerable claim against the defendant to redebit the defendant's account—in other words, to pass on the liability from the plaintiff to the defendant. If the defendant sought to resist liability, no doubt the bank would rely on the decision in Curtis v. London City and Midland Bank, [1908] 1 King's Bench 293. In that case a cheque was countermanded by telegraph. By an oversight of the clerks in the bank the telegram was not brought to the notice of the manager until two days later. In the meantime the cheque had been paid. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the countermand had not been effective and that the bank could debit the customer's account.
So I am not clear that the alternative defence, that the countermand was ineffective, would in the end do the defendant much good.
Be that as it may, our...
To continue reading
Request your trial