“Banks generally owe no duty of care to protect customers from third-party fraud.”
Customers of Barclays Bank sued after losing money to fraudsters who impersonated bank officials and persuaded victims to transfer funds. The claimants argued the bank should have protected them from such fraud.
Whether banks owe customers a duty of care to protect them from losses caused by third-party fraudsters impersonating bank officials, and the scope of vicarious liability for such acts.
The Supreme Court held that Barclays owed no duty of care to protect customers from third-party fraud and was not vicariously liable for the fraudsters' acts.
This case establishes important limits on both vicarious liability and duty of care in commercial contexts. It clarifies that businesses are not generally responsible for third-party criminal acts against their customers, affecting consumer protection and corporate liability principles.
You're reading the free summary of Various Claimants v Barclays Bank. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.