According to case below I - Issue; what is the issue the Court has to answer R - Relevant Law; what is the relevant law to be applied in this case. A - Application; apply the relevant law to the facts of the case; and C - Conclusion; your conclusion is the answer to your legal issue The Fiona Lorraine Philipp v. Barclays Bank UK PLC case is about a complicated legal disagreement about the bank's duty of care to stop authorized push payment (APP) fraud. Fiona Lorraine Philipp, the appellant, filed a claim against Barclays Bank UK PLC, the respondent. She said that the bank did not follow payment orders with reasonable skill and care, which caused her to lose money in fraudulent transactions. The main question in the case is whether Barclays broke its duty of care to Philipp by not noticing and stopping fake payment instructions. Philipp says that the bank should have known about the possible fraud because of red flags like the large amount of money being moved, the recent deposit into her account, and the foreign payee. Based on these signs, she says a reasonable and smart banker would have either done more research or put off the deals. Barclays, on the other hand, says it wasn't negligent and that it followed all standard banking practices and processes. There was no clear duty on the bank's part to stop the transfers, the bank says, so Philipp's losses were not due to a breach of duty on its part. The case takes a close look at the rules and habits of ban