BOND OF SECRECY

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11706, 19 December 1923, Page 7

BOND OF SECRECY

SHOULD A BANKER TELL? NEW TRIAL OF CASE ORDERED BY APPEAL COURT. ACTION FOR SLANDER. By Telegraph.—Pres* Assn. —Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cablo Association. (Received December 18, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON. December 17 Tlie Appeal Court has ordered a new trial of the bank secrets case* holding that a bank is only entitled to give information about a customer’s affairs owing to compulsion by law where public duty or the bank’* own interest demand it, or where the disclosure is made with the customer's express or implied consent. OVERDRAWN ACCOUNT. In June of this year a jury in th» High Court held that the words appearing in the pass-books of bank customers that “officers of the bank are bound to secrecy a 6 regards the transaction of its customers” are not applied in the ordinary course of bueiness. A branch manager had communicated to the manager cf an engineering firm the fact that one, of . his salesmen had pabsed a cheque and slightly overdrawn his account to a bookmaker. The jury dismissed the salesman’s claim for slander, holding that the tank’s action did not constitute slander. BANKS PERTURBED. The case gave rise- to a-controversy, and a committee of Clearing Houaa bankers decided that the bond of secrecy between a bank and its customers was not modified by the judgment. It was stated that the banks’ attitude is that they are bound to secrecy, but that when a client has an overdraft, and letters to his private residence are returned unopened, they are at liberty to make inquiries at nis place of business.