Andre & Anor v Clydesdale Bank Plc

A fact-finding judgment in a claim concerning property allegedly lost from a trunk held by a bank for safe custody. The civil standard is the balance of probabilities. The court may make alternative factual findings where the legal incidence of the burden of proof remains to be argued. Findings about the existence, identity and value of allegedly missing property must be based on reliable evidence and may take account of inherent implausibility, contemporaneous records and expert evidence. Legal consequences, including liability in bailment and recoverability of distress or aggravated damages, were reserved for later submissions.

The claimants sought delivery of, or compensation for, valuable stamps and other items allegedly missing from a trunk deposited with the defendant bank for safe custody. They also claimed damages for breach of the bank’s obligations, distress and aggravated damages.

The court heard extensive factual and expert evidence. This judgment addressed the credibility of witnesses, the history and security of the trunk, the alleged contents and their value, and the bank’s subsequent conduct. It was expressly confined to findings of fact, with the legal consequences to be addressed after further submissions.

1. Nature of judgment. The judgment was confined to findings of fact. Legal issues, including the legal effect of the receipt, the incidence of the burden of proof, liability under the bailment and the recoverability of additional damages, were reserved.
2. Standard and burden. The applicable standard was the usual civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. The court made findings on alternative hypotheses because the incidence of the burden of proof remained for legal argument.
3. Trunk and security. The trunk had been deposited with the bank in 1986, moved by Securicor from the Victoria branch to the Piccadilly branch, and was found outside the secured caged area. Its chain and padlock had been removed, the lock had been forced and its contents had been interfered with. Storage outside the caged area was inconsistent with the bank’s standard and prudent safe-custody procedures and reduced security.
4. Alleged stamps and covers. The claimants failed to establish the existence of the six alleged covers bearing Yellow Treskilling stamps. The court found the evidence of Mr and Mrs Andre unreliable, regarded the alleged number and composition of the covers as inherently implausible, and considered the expert evidence and the failure of any alleged stamps to surface. Some covers and a stock book had been placed in the trunk, but their precise contents, condition and value were not proved.
5. Other property and loss. The court accepted that the silver lighter had been in the trunk and was missing, provisionally valuing it at £600. It made alternative provisional findings on the value of other stamps and covers, depending on the burden of proof.
6. Additional damages. The court found that peace of mind and freedom from anxiety were factual purposes of the bailment. However, the legal recoverability of distress and aggravated damages was not decided. If the Yellow Treskilling covers had existed and such loss were legally recoverable, only a modest sum would have been awarded to Mr Andre, and no claim would have been available to Mrs Andre.