Natalie Hendy

Oct 29, 2024 | lexology.com | George Hoare |Thomas Morgan |Natalie Hendy

Key takeaways With authorised push payment (APP) fraud on the rise, the courts and regulators continue to grapple with the consequences of this problem. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Philipp v. Barclays Bank (see our previous article) provided clarity that payment service providers (PSPs) owe no contractual or tortious duty where the customer had unequivocally authorised and instructed the PSP to make the payment.

Oct 2, 2024 | lexology.com | George Hoare |Christian Lally |Natalie Hendy

Key takeaways In the case of Warren, the Court of Appeal has provided welcome clarification on application of CPR 3.9 and test for relief from sanctions While there are now clearer procedural steps, the Court has maintained focus on compliance with procedural rules and efficient conduct of litigation Ruling in Warren reiterates the Court’s wide discretion in these matters and highlights that parties’ conduct is key factor in how the Court will approach applications under CPR 3.9 Summary With...

Sep 19, 2024 | lexology.com | George Hoare |James Stockman |Natalie Hendy |Aishwarya Karunakaran

Key takeawaysThe Court of Appeal in Houssein v London Credit Limited ("LCL") [2024] has recently reiterated the test for determining whether default interest should be construed as a penalty clause. The threefold test is:First, as a threshold question, is the default rate of interest in substance a secondary obligation engaged upon breach of a primary obligation? Second, if it is, what is the extent and nature of the legitimate interest of the promisee in having the primary obligation performed?