There are red faces all round at Hill Dickinson after its bankers refused to settle a cheque drawn on one of the firm's client accounts.
Marks & Spencer had settled a personal injury case brought by an employee in Dublin. Hill Dicks, which acts for M&S's insurers, sent the plaintiff's lawyers a cheque drawn on a client account for €95,000. It arrived on 10th July, the plaintiff banked it the following day and then went off on holiday.
Two weeks later she telephoned her lawyer to say that the cheque hadn't cleared and her account had been frozen. The bank gave the reason as "refer to drawer". RollOnFriday's man with a bowler hat and a copy of the banking code translates this as "bounced as high as a rubber ball".
After days of going backwards and forwards Hill Dicks said on Monday that it would transfer the money electronically. But by Wednesday the plaintiff still hadn't got her money.
Hill Dicks blamed the problem on a "banking error" - although banks tend to be wary of bouncing cheques from large law firms. A Hill Dickinson spokesperson said: “The issue concerns a banking error. At no time has there been any question of financial impropriety by Hill Dickinson and its client. Hill Dickinson worked very quickly with the bank to resolve the situation, with the claimant now in full receipt of the funds.”
Tip Off ROF
Marks & Spencer had settled a personal injury case brought by an employee in Dublin. Hill Dicks, which acts for M&S's insurers, sent the plaintiff's lawyers a cheque drawn on a client account for €95,000. It arrived on 10th July, the plaintiff banked it the following day and then went off on holiday.
Two weeks later she telephoned her lawyer to say that the cheque hadn't cleared and her account had been frozen. The bank gave the reason as "refer to drawer". RollOnFriday's man with a bowler hat and a copy of the banking code translates this as "bounced as high as a rubber ball".
After days of going backwards and forwards Hill Dicks said on Monday that it would transfer the money electronically. But by Wednesday the plaintiff still hadn't got her money.
How it might have looked |
Hill Dicks blamed the problem on a "banking error" - although banks tend to be wary of bouncing cheques from large law firms. A Hill Dickinson spokesperson said: “The issue concerns a banking error. At no time has there been any question of financial impropriety by Hill Dickinson and its client. Hill Dickinson worked very quickly with the bank to resolve the situation, with the claimant now in full receipt of the funds.”
Comments
4
3
4
3
8
4
3
1
5
3
What goes around.....
5
1
5
5
6
1
4
2