Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v James (No 3)

The case of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v James (No 3) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, and the defendant, James. The dispute arose from a judgment by consent that had been entered into between the parties. The plaintiff sought to set aside this judgment, claiming that the defendant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by not disclosing certain information that would have influenced the defendant's decision to enter into the judgment by consent. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law by not disclosing information concerning the activities of receivers and whether the defendant had an arguable defence based on s 420A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's delay in advancing the case of misleading and deceptive conduct disentitled him to relief, and whether the defendant had an arguable defence based on the statutory provision.

The court held that the plaintiff had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by not disclosing information that the defendant had a reasonable expectation would be disclosed. The court found that the defendant had relied on the absence of this information and that knowledge of the information would have led him to not accept the judgment by consent. However, the court also held that the defendant's delay in advancing the case of misleading and deceptive conduct disentitled him to relief. The court found that the defendant did not have an arguable defence based on s 420A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), as the provision did not impose a standard on receivers that would have required them to disclose the information in question.

The court declined to set aside the judgment by consent, finding that the discretionary considerations did not favour doing so. The court held that the defendant had not established that he had an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim, and that the delay in advancing the case of misleading and deceptive conduct was a significant factor in its decision. The court did not make any orders setting aside the judgment by consent.