Australia Capital Financial Management Pty Ltd v Australian Financial Complaints Authority Limited

Australia Capital Financial Management Pty Ltd (ACFM) sought judicial review of a determination made by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) concerning a complaint brought by a consumer. The dispute arose from ACFM's contention that AFCA lacked the contractual authority, jurisdiction, or power to determine the complaint, which involved a claim to set aside a guarantee secured by the guarantor's primary residence. ACFM also argued that AFCA failed to afford procedural fairness and that its determination was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The matter was heard by Bell CJ, Meagher JA, and Basten AJA.

The central legal issues before the court were whether AFCA had acted within its contractual powers in making the determination, particularly concerning the nature of the claim involving the guarantee and the inclusion of interest in calculating the claim's value. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether AFCA had afforded procedural fairness to the parties and whether its decision was so unreasonable that it could be characterised as a reviewable error.

The court dismissed ACFM's appeal, finding that AFCA had acted within its contractual authority. The reasoning focused on the interpretation of the tripartite contract governing AFCA's dispute resolution functions, which empowered AFCA to make binding determinations under specified circumstances. The court concluded that the complaint fell within AFCA's jurisdiction and that its determination was not procedurally unfair nor unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and ACFM was ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents.