Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Ngo

The case of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Ngo involved a dispute between the plaintiff bank and the defendant borrower concerning default under business and residential loan agreements. The primary issue before the court was whether the bank had acted with the requisite care and skill expected of a prudent banker, and whether the bank had fulfilled its responsible lending obligations in line with the Australian Bankers’ Association Code of Banking Practice. Additionally, the court had to determine if the bank's conduct constituted misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable behaviour under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). Furthermore, the case examined whether the bank had provided services with due care and skill, upheld the statutory guarantee of fitness for purpose, and whether the provisions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) applied to both the business and residential loans in question.

The court assessed the bank's conduct against the benchmarks established in cases such as Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Dinh [No 2], focusing on whether the defendant was better off having had the loans. The court also considered if the bank's actions fell short of the necessary standard of care and skill, and whether the bank met its responsible lending obligations. Additionally, the court scrutinised whether the bank's conduct could be characterised as misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable under the relevant legislation. The application of the Australian Bankers’ Association Code of Banking Practice was pivotal in determining the bank's adherence to industry standards.

The court found that the bank had acted with the requisite care and skill, met its responsible lending obligations, and did not engage in misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable conduct. Consequently, the judgment was entered in favour of the bank. The court ruled that the bank was entitled to possession of the properties in question. The bank's conduct was deemed to meet the standards required of a diligent and prudent banker, and the defendant was not found to be better off having had the loans. As a result, the bank was awarded the orders for possession of the properties.