“Banks owe no duty of care to prevent third parties breaching freezing orders”
Customs and Excise obtained freezing orders against companies with accounts at Barclays Bank. The bank was served with the orders but continued to allow withdrawals by third parties, allegedly in breach of the orders. Customs and Excise sued the bank in negligence for failing to prevent the dissipation of assets.
Whether a bank owes a duty of care to a claimant to take reasonable care to prevent third parties from dealing with assets subject to a freezing order served on the bank.
The House of Lords held that no duty of care existed. The bank did not owe a duty to Customs and Excise to prevent third parties from dissipating the assets.
This case clarifies the limits of negligence liability in commercial contexts and confirms that courts will not readily impose duties of care that would unreasonably burden third parties. It remains important for understanding the boundaries of the duty of care in tort law.
You're reading the free summary of Customs and Excise Commissioners 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
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank [2006] UKHL 28
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.