Global InformationJoachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation information
| Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation | |
|---|---|
 Swiss Bank Corporation | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | N. Joachimson (a firm) v Swiss Bank Corporation |
| Decided | 11 March 1921 |
| Citation(s) | [1921] 3 KB 110 (1921) 6 Ll L Rep 435 [1921] All ER Rep 92 (1921) 125 LT 338 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Atkin LJ Bankes LJ Warrington LJ |
| Keywords | |
| Bank account, limitation periods | |
Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corporation [1921] 3 KB 110 is a judicial decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in relation to the fundamental nature of the legal relationship between banker and customer. Together with Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 it forms part of the foundational cases relating to English banking law and the nature of a bank's relationship with its customer in relation to the account.[1]
The point decided in the case was that a customer does not have a right of action against its bank for repayment of sums until the customer makes a demand (and accordingly, for the purposes of limitation periods, that time does not run until such a demand is made). However, the reason the decision is considered so important is for the influential comments made by way of obiter dictum by Atkin LJ in relation to the nature of the banker-customer relationship.[2]
The case is also cited as the leading authority for the proposition that a demand for repayment must be made at the branch of the bank where the account is kept; a position which appears increasingly anachronistic in modern banking.[3]
- ^ E.P. Ellinger; E. Lomnicka; C. Hare (2011). Ellinger's Modern Banking Law (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 121–122. ISBN 9780199232093.
- ^ Chamila S. Talagala (25 February 2010). "The Law Relating to Bank-Customer Relationship: Some Salient Duties of Banks". Retrieved 4 June 2016.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ See for example the criticism of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Kantilal Doshi v Indian Bank [1999] 4 SLR 1.