Share it

On appeal from: [2016] CSIH 11

This appeal considered whether the majority of the Extra Division correctly interpreted and applied the law relative to the existence of a duty of care or whether the majority have developed a new test, and whether the majority of the Extra Division exceeded the scope of their appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary.

In this case, the Lord Ordinary had found that Ms Steel generally expected NRAM to check her requests before complying with them, and therefore that she had not foreseen that they would rely on her assertions without checking their accuracy. In addition, any prudent bank taking basic precautions would have checked the accuracy of such statements, and it was therefore not reasonable for NRAM to have relied on the email.

Moreover, the Lord Ordinary was correct to find that a commercial lender about to implement an agreement relating to its security does not act reasonably if it proceeds upon no more than a description of the agreement’s terms put forward by the borrower.

For judgment, please download: [2018] UKSC 13

For Court’s Press Summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary

For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (7 Nov 2017, morning session) (7 Nov 2017, afternoon session)