[2] Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman Limited, Annual Report 1993-1994, p25.

[3] National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] QB 654

⁴ Electronic Funds Transfer Code of Conduct, s5.4.

[5] There is no duty on the banker to recognise the signature of the customer. The function of the signature is one of authorisation not identification: see Kerr J in National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1975] QB 654 at 666.

[6] It is usually only a bearer cheque which is of interest since it will be unusual for there to be a holder in due course of an order instrument. However, it is not impossible if the order instrument is stolen by the named payee: see National Bank of Canada v Tardivel Associates (1994) 109 DLR (4th) 126, discussed below.

⁷ [1907] 2 KB 735

[8] See Paragraph 119 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

⁹ Tyree, Alan "The Liability of Banks Collecting Forged Cheques" (1983) 11 Aust Bus L Rev 236.

¹⁰ (1987) Aust Torts Rep 80-102.

[11] (1994) 109 DLR (4th) 126; see Crawford, Bradley "Is this a cheque I see Before Me?: National Bank v Tardivel and the Scope of the defence of non-delivery" (1994) 24 Canadian Business Law Journal 1 where this line of cases is criticised.

[12] (1911) 19 WLR 184

¹³Crawford, Bradley "Is this a cheque I see Before Me?: National Bank v Tardivel and the Scope of the defence of non-delivery" (1994) 24 Canadian Business Law Journal 1 where this line of cases is criticised.