BANKING SECRECY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18586, 19 December 1923, Page 11

BANKING SECRECY.

RIGHTS OF A CUSTOMER.

NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

Australian and N.Z. Cable Association, (feed. 9.5 p.m.) LONDON, Dec. 17

The Appeal Court ordered a new trial in the case of Tournier v. the National Provincial and Union Bank of England, Limited, the Court holding that a bank is only entitled to give information about the affairs of its customers owing to compulsion by law or where the public duty or the bank's own interests demand it, or where the disclosure Is maCe with the express or implied consent or the customer.

In this case Mr. Edwin Frederick Tournier, a commercial traveller and salesman, claimed damages for alleged slander; lor breach of the confidence existing between banker and customer; and £108 10s for consequent loss of employment and commission. The alleged slander complained of was spoken by Mr. J. G. Fenriell, the acting manager of the Moorgate Street branch of the bank, to the plaintiff's employers, Messrs. Kenyon and Co., and was as follows:I am afraid that Mr. Tournier is engaged with bookmakers, as we are able to trace a cheque passing from Mr. Tournier's account . to bookmakers. Mr. Tournier's account is overdrawn, and various promises have been made by him to give the matter his attention. Cheques passed through his account were for betting. Sir Harold Smith, K.C., and Mr. Philip Pitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. G. Hurst, K.C., and Mr. P. B. Morle for the defendants.

Sir Harold Smith, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff opened an account with the bank in 1920. In March, 1922. there was an overdraft of £9, which the plaintiff was unable to pay owing to financial difficulties. The bank requested payment, and the plaintiff agreed to pay £1 a week in reduction of the y overdraft Three instalments were paid, and the plaintiff was unable to continue them at that time. On July 13. 1922, the bank telephoned to Messrs. Kenyon and Co., and it was then that the alleged slander was uttered .to Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Wejls, the two directors of the firm. The plaintiff had never had a bet with a bookmaker in his life.' The statements, even if true, were grossly improper and defamatory. What could be more damaging to a man who was on trial for three months and in .a. position of trust than to have such : reiparks , made about him. Two cheques which had been made out in the plaintiff's name, and which dealt with the same transaction, had nothing to oo with betting; though-one. went to the account of a bookmaker. The bookmaker had sold some felt through the plaintiff, and the cheque, made out in the plaintiff's name, had passed through his bank. The defendants pleaded that the-words complained. of, it spoken, which was denied, were uttered in the honest belief that they were true, and that the occasion" was privileged. ' Mr. J. G. Fennell, in evidence, said that in the telephone conversation the words which he actually used were:lt is only a small matter, but Mr. Tournier is slightly indebted to the bank, and I think he ought to put it right._ Mr. Tournier is getting money from some source or other. I have seen cheques coming through the bank payable to Mr. Tournnier, .and I made it my business to find out where one cheque had gone to. I was informed* that it had gone to the credit of a bookmaker's account.

The information, the -witness continued, which he had obtained about the cheques passing through the London Joint City and Midland Bank was given to him by his clerk, whom he had told to telephone to the bank.

Sir Harold Smith: You did not trouble to speak yourself .to the London Joint City and Midland Bank?— No. All that you knew was that a cheque had passed, and on that information you informed his employer?-Yes. If you had made inquiries of the bookmaker you would have known that the cheque was not for a betting transaction? Yes. • •'

Had you made that inquiry would you not have told his employers the result?—Yes.

Tlie witness went on to say that he was willing to apologise on July 14. 1922, for any harm that he might have done through the telephone conversation, but as a result of the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the action he did not now think that there waV any necessity to apologise. He admitted that officers of the bank were bound to secrecy about the business ot customers. This ' restriction, ' however, only bound him. socially, and not in the ordinary course of business 1 in which the bank's interests were concerned.

Counsel then addressed the jury, after which Mr. Justice Avery summed up. The questions left to the jury and the answers given were :— (1) Were the words complained of in fact spoken by Mr. Fennell?—No. (2) If so, were they defamatory of the plaintiff?— No. . ' (3) Has the plaintiff suffered actual damage by the speaking of such, words? No.

(4) Was Mr. Fennel] actuated by malic© in speaking the words— i.e., by an indirect motive other than a desire to do his duty? —No. •••;■:.-■ ■.. | "

' (5) Was the communication about the plaintiff's account at the bank made 'to his employers on a reasonable and proper occasion —Yes. -

(6) Damages none. , Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendants. -