Fails to give a legal basis for its

Application pratique:

This case law means the bank is not automatically liable for its subsidiary's actions. To succeed, you must prove the bank directly interfered (e.g., giving instructions to the agency), the subsidiary was a sham, or assets were intermingled. Without such evidence, a claim against the bank will likely fail. Immediately gather all property documents, correspondence, and any communications that might show the bank's involvement, then consult a solicitor to assess whether misleading appearance can be established.

Application pratique:

Under the ruling, the bank is not bound by the mandate of its subsidiary merely because of ownership. You would need to show the bank created a misleading appearance—for instance, by interfering in the agency's management. Check your management contract: if it's solely with the subsidiary, your recourse is likely against the subsidiary's insolvency estate. File a claim in the insolvency proceedings promptly, and retain all documents evidencing the bank's involvement, if any, to explore a possible argument of apparent mandate.

Application pratique:

This decision confirms that a parent company is not automatically liable for its subsidiary's obligations. To hold the parent liable, you must show the subsidiary was fictitious, assets were intermingled, or the parent interfered to create a misleading appearance. Check your purchase contract for any direct warranties from the parent group. Collect all marketing materials, correspondence, and meeting notes that may demonstrate the group's active role in the project, as these could support a claim of detrimental reliance on the parent company's involvement.