Kullack, E. v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 702

Kullack, E. v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 702

The applicant failed to prove the alleged misleading conduct or negligent advice. The Court preferred Harwood's evidence on critical matters, found that the applicant understood she had to repay the Swiss francs borrowed or their Australian equivalent at repayment, rejected the alleged assurances about liability, interest, the $60,000, and securities, and found that the complete loan form was executed after the applicant had an opportunity to study it. Although a bank may in some circumstances owe a duty to advise, the applicant did not prove that she relied on the bank for advice whether to borrow Swiss francs or that Harwood gave the alleged advice. The bank's cross-claim was therefore...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Application Alleging Misleading Conduct and Negligence Concerning a Foreign Currency Loan, With Bank Cross Claim for Recovery Under Loan and Securities / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment for the first respondent/cross-claimant against Esther Kullack and Armin Kullack on the cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['negligent Advice' 'misleading Conduct' 'foreign Currency Loan' 'exchange Rate Risk' 'bank Securities' 'cross Claim for Debt']
['tort' 'trade Practices' 'banking and Finance' 'contract'] ['negligent Advice' 'misleading Conduct' 'foreign Currency Loan' 'exchange Rate Risk' 'bank Securities' 'cross Claim for Debt']

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

Application Alleging Misleading Conduct and Negligence Concerning a Foreign Currency Loan, With Bank Cross Claim for Recovery Under Loan and Securities / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents engaged in misleading conduct within the meaning of Trade Practices Act 1974 (s.52) in relation to the Swiss franc loan.' 'Whether the bank or Harwood owed and breached a duty to advise the applicant about offshore loans, exchange rate movements, hedging, and the implications of the floating of the Australian dollar.' 'Whether the applicant was misled about the securities required for the loan.' 'Whether there was a concluded loan agreement binding the applicant according to the whole of the foreign currency loan application form.' 'Whether the bank was entitled to judgment on its cross-claim for the amount due in Swiss francs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove the alleged misleading conduct or negligent advice. The Court preferred Harwood's evidence on critical matters, found that the applicant understood she had to repay the Swiss francs borrowed or their Australian equivalent at repayment, rejected the alleged assurances about liability, interest, the $60,000, and securities, and found that the complete loan form was executed after the applicant had an opportunity to study it. Although a bank may in some circumstances owe a duty to advise, the applicant did not prove that she relied on the bank for advice whether to borrow Swiss francs or that Harwood gave the alleged advice. The bank's cross-claim was therefore...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judgment for the first respondent/cross-claimant against Esther Kullack and Armin Kullack on the cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'Judgment be entered for the first respondent against the cross-respondents Esther Kullack and Armin Kullack in the sum of 704,320.07 Swiss francs.' 'The applicant and third cross-respondent pay the costs of the respondents of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed.']