- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dextra Bank & Trust Company Ltd v. Bank of Jamaica (Jamaica)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, an offshore bank, issued a cheque for USD 2,999,000 in favour of the Respondent, the central bank of a Caribbean nation. The Appellant believed it was extending a short-term loan to the Respondent, to be secured by a promissory note. The Respondent, however, believed it was purchasing United States currency with local currency. A group of intermediaries acting without authority orchestrated the misunderstanding and diverted the Respondent’s local-currency payments to themselves.
The Respondent received the cheque, endorsed it to its commercial banker, and the cheque was duly honoured by the Appellant’s correspondent bank. Discovering the fraud, the Appellant sued in the Supreme Court of Judicature for (i) conversion of the cheque and (ii) restitution of the proceeds as money paid by mistake. Both claims were dismissed at first instance and again by the Court of Appeal. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal to the final appellate court, which delivered the opinion summarised here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether delivery of the cheque was “effectual” under section 21(2)(a) of the Bills of Exchange Act so as to vest title in the Respondent and defeat the Appellant’s conversion claim.
- Whether the Appellant’s payment was made under a qualifying mistake of fact, entitling it to restitution.
- If a mistake existed, whether the Respondent’s defences of (a) change of position (including “anticipatory reliance”) and/or (b) bona fide purchase barred restitution.
- Whether the relative fault of the parties is relevant when assessing the defence of change of position.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The cheque was delivered by an unauthorised intermediary; therefore section 21(2)(a) was not satisfied and the Respondent converted the cheque.
- The payment was made under a mistake of fact (belief that the transaction was a loan); restitution should follow.
- The Respondent cannot rely on change of position because its expenditure occurred before receipt of the cheque (“anticipatory reliance”).
- Even if change of position is available, relative fault must be weighed; the Respondent’s procedural breaches should defeat or diminish the defence.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Appellant’s authorised agent had power to deliver the cheque; the mode of physical delivery is irrelevant, so title passed and no conversion occurred.
- No recoverable mistake existed; at most the Appellant made a misprediction about future events.
- Alternatively, the Respondent changed its position in good faith by reimbursing its agents for the local-currency payments; anticipatory reliance suffices.
- In any event, the Respondent was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and is protected.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Marfani & Co Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 956 | Nature of conversion of negotiable instruments | Cited to frame the tort of conversion and the effect of negotiating cheques. |
| R E Jones Ltd v Waring & Gillow Ltd [1926] AC 670 | Holder in due course principles | Used to distinguish circumstances where an agent of the holder possessed authority. |
| Equitable Securities Ltd v Neil [1987] 1 NZLR 233 | Conditions attached to delivery of bills must be communicated | Supported finding that no conditional delivery was communicated to Respondent. |
| Watson v Russell (1862) 3 B&S 34; (1864) 5 B&S 968 | Effect of agent’s limited authority on delivery | Analogous precedent showing that undisclosed limitations do not defeat title in a good-faith payee. |
| Clutton v George Attenborough & Son [1897] AC 90 | Fraud of agent does not defeat title of good-faith transferee | Reinforced Respondent’s title despite intermediary fraud. |
| Talbot v Von Boris [1911] 1 KB 854 | Same principle as above | Same application. |
| Hasan v Willson [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 431 | Same principle | Same application. |
| Midland Bank Plc v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 576 | Support for broad view of “delivery” under Bills of Exchange Act | Cited in approving the Court of Appeal’s reasoning. |
| Yan v Post Office Bank Ltd [1994] 1 NZLR 154 | Similar support for delivery analysis | Referenced for persuasive authority. |
| Cocks v Masterman (1829) 9 B&C 902 | Rule on estoppel by negligence | Mentioned but not determinative after conversion claim failed. |
| Barclays Bank Ltd v W J Simms, Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] 1 QB 677 | Elements of mistake-based restitution | Provided framework for analysing whether a qualifying mistake existed. |
| Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 | Modern foundation of “change of position” defence | Quoted extensively to define the defence and its scope. |
| South Tyneside BC v Svenska International [1955] 1 All ER 545 | Limits on anticipatory reliance where underlying contract void | Discussed as exceptional and not controlling of present facts. |
| Thomas v Houston Corbett & Co [1969] NZLR 151 | Use of relative fault in apportionment under statute | Considered but not followed; court declined to import relative fault. |
| National Bank of New Zealand Ltd v Waitaki International Processing (NI) Ltd [1999] 2 NZLR 211 | New Zealand approach to change of position and fault | Reviewed but rejected as persuasive for English common law. |
| Goss v Chilcott [1996] 3 NZLR 385 | Relationship between statute and common law change-of-position defence | Cited in passing during discussion of New Zealand authorities. |
| Kelly v Solari (1841) 9 M & W 54 | Carelessness does not bar restitution for mistake | Used in reasoning that “relative fault” should not qualify defence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Conversion Claim: The court held that, under section 21(2)(a) of the Bills of Exchange Act, title to a cheque passes upon effectual delivery. The Appellant had entrusted the cheque to its authorised agent with instructions to deliver it to the Respondent. Although the agent improperly used an intermediary, such undisclosed deviation did not vitiate delivery. Because the Respondent received the cheque in good faith and gave value, it became the owner, and no conversion occurred.
Restitutionary Claim: The Board distinguished between a mistake of fact and a mere misprediction. The Appellant’s error concerned the future character of the transaction (loan versus sale), not an existing fact at the time of payment. Consequently, no recoverable mistake of fact was proven. The court further noted that any earlier factual misconception (e.g., belief that the Respondent had agreed to borrow) was overtaken by the Appellant’s own protective instructions to its agent and therefore not causative of the payment.
Change of Position: Even if a mistake had been shown, the Respondent changed its position in good faith by reimbursing its agents for local-currency outlays made to obtain the cheque. The court adopted a broad, equitable view of the defence, expressly recognising “anticipatory reliance” as sufficient: it is inequitable to compel restitution where the defendant has incurred irreversible expenditure in expectation of a payment that is subsequently received.
Relative Fault: The court rejected incorporation of “relative fault” into the defence. Good faith by the defendant is the controlling threshold; assessing comparative negligence would inject undue instability into commercial transactions.
Bona Fide Purchase: The majority below had held, and the Board agreed in principle, that the Respondent also qualified as an indirect bona fide purchaser for value without notice, providing an additional bar to restitution—though the Board’s primary reasoning made it unnecessary to rely on this doctrine.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The decision affirms that:
- Delivery under the Bills of Exchange Act focuses on authority to deliver, not on the precise mechanics of physical transfer.
- An erroneous forecast about the future legal character of a transaction is not a “mistake of fact” for restitutionary purposes.
- The defence of change of position encompasses good-faith anticipatory reliance, and does not require a comparison of the parties’ respective fault.
The immediate consequence is that the Respondent retains the cheque proceeds and the Appellant recovers nothing. No new doctrinal rule was created, but the judgment clarifies the scope of both section 21(2)(a) and the change-of-position defence within UK and Commonwealth common law.
Alert