Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 is a judicial decision of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales in relation to the banker-customer relationship, and in particular in connection with the bank's duties in relation to payment instructions from a customer's agent or purported agent which give rise, or ought to give rise, to a suspicion of fraud.

However the significance of the case was recognised by the judiciary much earlier; shortly after the decision was handed down it was extensively cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 1340 (overturned by the House of Lords on other grounds).

Having identified the central issue from the outset, much of the decision was a detailed review of the evidence to consider to what extent the bank knew, or ought to have known, of the fraudulent designs of Quincecare's chairman.

This included a review of the dealings of the bank with Mr Stiller, and also consideration of expert evidence of the usual customs and practices of bankers.

In an oft-cited passage, Steyn J held that: The law should not impose too burdensome an obligation on bankers, which hampers the effective transacting of banking business unnecessarily.

[7] (emphasis added)He went on to stress that "trust, not distrust, is also the basis of a bank's dealings with its customers",[8] citing with approval similar comments from Bowen LJ in Sanders Bros v Maclean & Co (1883) 11 QBD 327 at 343.

[2] It was cited with approval almost immediately after it was decided by the Court of Appeal in Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 1340, which used to be the leading authority in this area of the law.