What is the standard of care and skill required by a bank to accept a cheque from a customer's account?

In Selangor United Rubber Estates v. Cradock, [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1555, [1968] 2 All E.R. 1073 (Ch. D.), Ungoed-Thomas J. concludes at pp. 1118-19: To my mind, in accordance with those quotations, a bank has a duty under its contract with its customer to exercise “reasonable care and skill” in carrying out its part with regard to operations within its contract with its customer. The standard of that reasonable care and skill is an objective standard applicable to bankers. Whether or not it has been attained in any particular case has to be decided in the light of all the relevant facts, which can vary almost infinitely. The relevant considerations include the prima facie assumption that men are honest, the practice of bankers, the very limited time in which banks have to decide what course to take with regard to a cheque presented for payment without risking liability for delay, and the extent to which an operation is unusual or out of the ordinary course of business. An operation which is reasonably consonant with the normal conduct of business (such as payment by a stockbroker into his account of proceeds of sale of his client’s shares) of necessity does not suggest that it is out of the ordinary course of business. If “reasonable care and skill” is brought to the consideration of such an operation, it clearly does not call for any intervention by the bank. What intervention is appropriate in that exercise of reasonable care and skill again depends on circumstances. Where it is to enquire, then failure to make enquiry is not excused by the conviction that the enquiry would be futile, or mat the answer would be false.