Timms v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] NSWSC 560

Timms v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2001] NSWSC 560

The plaintiffs' claims failed because the Court did not accept Mr or Mrs Timms as giving an accurate account of the relevant 1991 conversations, found that the Timms relied on their own inquiries rather than anything said or done by the Bank, and found that the Accountant was not retained to conduct full due diligence or to check absolutely everything. Since no liability was established against the Bank or the Accountant, the contribution cross-claims failed, and the Bank's prima facie entitlement to debt judgments and possession was not displaced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Negligence and Misleading Representation Claim Concerning Purchase of a Business, Heard With Bank Debt and Possession Proceedings / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims against the Bank and the Accountant dismissed; contribution cross-claims dismissed; Bank entitled to judgment for debt and possession.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'banks' "accountant's Retainer" 'reliance' 'misleading Representations' 'contribution Cross Claims' 'debt Recovery' 'possession']
['torts' 'banking' 'professional Negligence' 'equity'] ['negligence' 'banks' "accountant's Retainer" 'reliance' 'misleading Representations' 'contribution Cross Claims' 'debt Recovery' 'possession']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence and Misleading Representation Claim Concerning Purchase of a Business, Heard With Bank Debt and Possession Proceedings / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Bank assumed a duty to pass on information or advise the plaintiffs about the viability of the Artrona business.' 'Whether the Bank gave false or misleading information which induced the plaintiffs to purchase the business.' 'Whether the plaintiffs relied on anything said or done by the Bank officers.' 'Whether the Accountant was retained to conduct full due diligence or only to advise on documents shown to him.' 'Whether the Accountant failed to carry out his retainer.' 'Whether the Bank was entitled to judgments for debt and possession under its securities.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' claims failed because the Court did not accept Mr or Mrs Timms as giving an accurate account of the relevant 1991 conversations, found that the Timms relied on their own inquiries rather than anything said or done by the Bank, and found that the Accountant was not retained to conduct full due diligence or to check absolutely everything. Since no liability was established against the Bank or the Accountant, the contribution cross-claims failed, and the Bank's prima facie entitlement to debt judgments and possession was not displaced.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims against the Bank and the Accountant dismissed; contribution cross-claims dismissed; Bank entitled to judgment for debt and possession.

Orders

  • ["Verdict for the Bank on the Timms' claim." 'Verdict for Mr Rosenfeld.' 'Cross-claims for contribution dismissed.' 'Judgment for the Bank against Anastasia Timms and Brian Timms for $5,129,894.19 plus interest from 26 February 2001.' 'Judgment for the Bank against T W Holdings Pty Ltd for $1,850,133.85 plus...