Bakarich v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

In the Federal Court of Australia, the plaintiffs, Bakarich, brought proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. They sought equitable relief in relation to guarantees and a mortgage that were provided as security for bank loans. The plaintiffs argued that they were induced to provide these securities through the bank's alleged false and misleading conduct. They further contended that the transactions were unconscionable and that the principle in Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio applied. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that a variation of the agreement discharged them from their liability under the securities, invoking the principle in Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd. They also sought a declaration that the guarantees and mortgage were unjust under section 7(1) of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), alleging undue influence.

The court had to determine whether the bank's conduct was misleading or deceptive, thereby inducing the plaintiffs to provide the securities. It also had to consider whether the transactions were unconscionable and whether the principle in Amadio applied. Furthermore, the court needed to examine whether the variation of the agreement discharged the plaintiffs from their liability under the securities and if the principle in Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd applied. Finally, the court had to decide if the guarantees and mortgage were unjust under section 7(1) of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) due to undue influence.

The court found that the bank had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. It held that the transactions were not unconscionable and that the principle in Amadio did not apply. The court also ruled that the variation of the agreement did not discharge the plaintiffs from their liability under the securities and that the principle in Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd did not apply. Furthermore, the court found that the guarantees and mortgage were not unjust under section 7(1) of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) due to undue influence.

The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the bank's costs.