Riyad BAnk v Ahli United Bank

This is a really significant decision of the English Court of Appeal issued last week. It develops and clarifies the reasoning in Henderson v Merrett [1995] 2 A.C.145, and is the latest in the line starting with Hedley Byrne and continuing through Caparo v Dickman. I was not surprised to see Buxton L.J. say that "we were told that the issues raised by this case [on duty of care]were of some general interest in commercial circles. "

To condense a detailed series of judgments into one paragraph is unfair, unwise and ultimately misleading but for the purpose of this short note, the following may be found helpful pending a full reading:

"... in a case where there have been and have been expected to be direct dealings between adviser and advisee, a contract that causes the adviser to pass his advice through a third party [will not necessarily] as a matter of law protect the adviser from liability to the advisee. All will depend on the particular circumstances ..."

Riyad Bank & Ors v Ahli United Bank (UK) Plc [2006] EWCA Civ 780 is available on www.bailii.org. Thanks again to CMC Cameron McKenna (www.lawnow.com) for the "heads-up".

Comments

[Forex Scalping Strategies]

The Court of Appeal commented that as a matter of law, a contractual structure which causes an adviser to provide his advice via a third party does not protect the adviser from liability to the ultimate recipient of the advice.