This case considered complaints that the bank had failed to act in accordance with normal banking practice and that it had not complied with advertisements which stated that there were locally based agricultural managers and that every agricultural customer would have access to sound financial help face-to-face. The court held that bank’s right to demand repayment had not been in any way restricted particularly in the light of the clear warning in the facility letter which stated that the overdraft was repayable on demand. There was nothing in the advertisements that guaranteed or even promised that all decisions relating to the account of agricultural customers would be made by agricultural experts and therefore it would not be reasonable to impose such a duty on the bank.
This is a useful decision for banks as it sets out the bank’s responsibilities in the light of its own clearly worded facility letters. This case should also limit claims which attempt to use the bank’s advertisements as a way of unreasonably extending a bank’s duty of care.
Hall v Royal Bank of Scotland PLC [2009] EWHC B36