Kojic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] FCA 455

Kojic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] FCA 455

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia's conduct was found to be unconscionable and not 'innocent' wrongdoing under the relevant statutory provisions, so its liability was not reduced for contributory negligence or apportionable liability. Costs awarded to applicants against both respondents, with McDonald only liable for costs incurred after his joinder.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Orders After Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for applicants; damages and costs orders against both respondents.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'apportionable Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'costs']
['commercial Law' 'banking and Finance Law'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'apportionable Liability' 'contributory Negligence' 'costs']

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

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Orders After Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent’s liability should be reduced for contributory negligence or treated as apportionable liability under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 (SA)' 'Appropriate order for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia's conduct was found to be unconscionable and not 'innocent' wrongdoing under the relevant statutory provisions, so its liability was not reduced for contributory negligence or apportionable liability. Costs awarded to applicants against both respondents, with McDonald only liable for costs incurred after his joinder.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicants; damages and costs orders against both respondents.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent pay to the applicants damages in the sum of $636,796.47.' 'The second respondent pay to the applicants damages in the sum of $159,199.12.' 'The first respondent pay to the applicants costs of the proceedings.' 'The second respondent pay to the applicants costs of the proceedings incurred from...