Santander UK Plc v CCP Graduate School Limited
| Judge | Mrs Justice Jennifer |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 667 (KB) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Counsel | Alexia Knight |
| Date | 25 March 2025 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 667 (KB)
Case No: KA-2024-000063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM MASTER BROWN
KB-2022-003539
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 25/03/2025
Before :
MRS JUSTICE JENNIFER EADY DBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
SANTANDER UK PLCAppellant
- and –
CCP GRADUATE SCHOOL LIMITEDRespondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alexia Knight (instructed byAddleshaw Goddard LLP) for the Appellant
Ruhi Sethi-Smith (instructed to attend the hearing on a direct access basis for CCP Graduate School
Limited; Saracens Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 27 February 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 25 March 2025 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives
(see eg https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1169.html).
.............................
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.SANTANDER UK PLC V CCP GRADUATE SCHOOL LTD
Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE:
Introduction
1.The question at the heart of this appeal is whether, in circumstances where payments have
been made into a bank account as a result of fraud, a tortious duty of retrieval can arise in
relationto the receiving bank when the paying party (the victim of thefraud)isnot a
customer of that bank. The basis of such a duty is said to arise from the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2023] UKSC 25, [2024] AC 346, in
particular at [118]-[119].
2.Ingiving this judgment, I am concerned with an appeal brought by Santander UK plc
(“Santander”) against the decision of Master Brown, handeddown on 14 March 2024,
refusing part of its application for summary dismissal and/or strike out of a claim brought
against it by CCP Graduate SchoolLimited (“CCP”). At the oral hearing before me,
Santander appeared by Ms Knight of counsel, who represented its interests below; CCP was
represented by Ms Sethi-Smith of counsel, albeit other counsel had previously represented its
interests before the Master.
The background
3.CCP’s claim arises from an authorised push payment (“APP”) fraud; so called because a
victim is induced (by fraudulent means) to authorise (“push”) the payment from their bank to
a bank account controlled by a fraudster. Every year, thousands of individuals and businesses
fall victim to APP frauds, which can have a devastating effect on people’s lives; the Payment
Services Regulator’s annual fraud report for 2024 records that £459.7 million was lost to APP
scams in the preceding year.
4.In the present case, CCP was the victim of an APP fraud when (by its director, Mr Pathirana)
it was induced to make 15 payments (“the payments”) from its account (“the CCP account”)
with the National Westminster Bank plc (“NatWest”) into an account at Santander, which was
held in the name of PGW Consultants Limited (“the account”). For each of the payments,
CCP provided the sort code and account number for the account, which was sufficient to
provide the necessary authorisation for payment. For completeness, I note that it was CCP’s
case before the Master that it had only provided a payee reference of “PGW Limited” (not
“PGW Consultants Limited”), but the Master was clear: (i) the claim had not been pleaded as
a breach of mandate, and (in any event) (ii) giving the sort code and account number was
sufficient for NatWest to be authorised to make the payments (see the Master’s judgment at
[25]-[30]); there is no appeal before me in respect of this ruling.
5.The payments were made between 13 September and 12 October 2016 and a total of
£415,909.67 was transferred in this way. Shortly after receipt, on various datesand in
varying sums, the fraudsters then transferred the payments out of the account to a number of
other accounts held with different banks.
6.It is Santander’s case that, by the close of 20 October 2016, just £5.39 remained in the
account. That case is supported by the print out of movements in and out of the account
exhibited to the first statement of Mr Alexander Unger, solicitor for Santander, and is further
confirmed by a letter of 13 December 2016, setting out the findings of the Financial
OmbudsmanService. At the hearing before the Master, CCP accepted the defendants’
evidence in this regard (see paragraph 6 of CCP’s skeleton argument for the hearing on 19
July 2023).
7.As the Master records, however, there wassome uncertainty as to precisely when CCP
contacted NatWest to raise an alert as to the fraud. For CCP, it was said that Mr Pathirana
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting