Consider the case study of Darlington Bank and Jack. Answer the given questions based on principles of duty of confidentiality in the common laws of people and contract law.
Case Study
Issue
Rule
There are several rules and regulations which have shown the duty of the confidentiality in the common laws for the people. It has also shown that how people work and their possible duty of the confidentiality to keep the information safe. The duty of confidentiality is arrived from the common law interpretation that has been followed in the case of Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England [1924] 1 KB 461. This case arrived from the contract between the customer and the bank which shows the duty of the people related to keeping data confidentiality. The duty has been based on the expectation that the customer will assume that the bank will maintain the business of the customer financial and personal matters. In the case of Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England it has been stated that in some circumstances, the bank has the right to reveal the confidential information. However, these certain circumstances have been revealed in the given case. Nonetheless, in the normal case, bank would not reveal the confidential data of the client to other person otherwise they will be responsible for the heavy penalties. The cases in which the bank can reveal the information are the exceptions that are first when the law requires the information, secondly there has been the interest of the bank for the disclosure, thirdly when there is the public duty to disclose the information and lastly when the client has given the consent even implicitly for the disclosure. These are the certain cases in which bank would be bound to disclose the confidential information of client. Nonetheless, in the public interest, bank would be liable to disclose this information to government officer whenever bank would be asked.
The Code of Banking Practice 2008 and the Privacy Act 1988 has provided various standards of conduct that are applied to the banks and has provided all the exceptions which has been given in the case of Tournier. This shows that bank is working under the contract and being party to the contract it could not make the violation of the banking laws and regulations.
The contract law states that there must been two parties to enter into a valid contract and there are some essentials that must been satisfied for the contract to be valid. To enter into a valid contract it is required that essentials of contract must been satisfied. The five essentials are:-
The Federal Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) in which Part 10.2 defines the money laundering offences as similar laws to these applies in Australia. The Australian federation police is the main authority that investigates the money laundering cases. In Lin v R [2015] NSWCCA case, it has been found that the gambling is a part of money laundering and shall been punished under various laws (Harvey, 2019). Nonetheless, in some of the country gambling and speculation is legal and would be considered accordingly.
Application
After assessing the case and reading all the required material, it is found that the facts of the case:-
After assessing the case, it had been advised to the bank that according to the case Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England. The case that has been applied on the does Darlington owes a duty of confidential information to the bank. Yes bank owes the duty of confidential information not be disclosed but according to the case study the confidential information was such that is the matter of law (Hansen, Treumer, & Andhov, 2018). Therefore the bank can leak the information that the information of the law and it is also the public duty. Being in the public duty position, bank would be liable to disclose these given information whenever it is being asked. Nonetheless, bank would not be liable for any legal penalty and issues in this case (May, 2017).
The bank has linked the accounts as bank has tried to contact to the jack and he has ignored the messages and calls and therefore the bank has the right according to contract that it can link the accounts of the Jack if there has been overdraft. Thus bank has a right to combine the accounts of Jack. In this case, bank has not made any mistakes and nor violated any of the banking laws and regulation. Bank has complied with the banking procedure which it needed to follow while disclosing any information about the client to officer. It was Jack who neglected the message and did not respond accordingly. Therefore, in this case, Jack would be considered as person who does not perform his action (Smits, 2017).
The bank has the duty to reveal the information to proper authority called Australian federation police that deal in frauds and money laundering cases. Therefore, any information revealed by bank to officer would not be considered as illegal act and Bank would not be questioned by the Jack for disclosing his personal information. The bank will not been held guilty for revealing the information as applied in the case Lin v R [2015]. As per the rules and facts held in the case of Lin v R [2015], it is held that bank would be free from any of the liability for disclosing Jack’s personal information and would be held liable. Bank has performed its best duty by informing Jack about the case and investigation made by the officer for his account (Hook, 2016).
Conclusion
There are several facts and application of the rules which needs to be followed by the Bank and jack both. These both person are parties to the contract and has to perform their duties accordingly. In this case, bank was asked to disclose the personal information of Jack due to some reason. However, the case in which disclosure of the personal information was asked is given in the exceptional case in which bank could disclose the information. Therefore, bank would be free from any of the liabilities and would be considered right in this case. It has been concluded that the bank has no fault in accordance with the laws. The bank has the right to link the accounts. The bank has reveal the confidential information as demanded by law. The bank has the duty to inform the proper authority in money laundering cases. In this case, Jack could not held bank liable for the breach of any of the laws and regulation neither in banking law nor of contract law.