Bankier v HAP2 Pty Ltd

Bankier v HAP2 Pty Ltd was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff, Ms Bankier, sought damages for alleged negligent financial advice provided by the defendant, Mr Avery, a financial planner. Ms Bankier had been awarded nearly $2 million in damages following a car accident. Mr Avery was engaged to advise her on how to invest a significant portion of her award. The plaintiff's investments subsequently suffered substantial losses, and she claimed that Mr Avery's failure to adequately warn her of the risks associated with her investment strategy and significant withdrawals from her capital amounted to negligence. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The court had to determine whether Mr Avery's advice was negligent and whether the plaintiff's claims were within the statutory limitation period.

The court considered the standard of care expected of a financial planner and whether Mr Avery had fulfilled his duty to provide appropriate warnings and advice. It examined whether Mr Avery's failure to read the judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff and his limited understanding of her circumstances constituted negligence. The court also evaluated whether the plaintiff's claims were time-barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). It held that Mr Avery should have undertaken more thorough investigations into the plaintiff's circumstances to provide appropriate advice and warnings. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and that the defendant had indeed been negligent in his advice.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that Mr Avery's advice was negligent and that the plaintiff's claims were not time-barred. It determined that Mr Avery failed to provide the level of care and warning expected of a financial planner under the circumstances. The court concluded that Mr Avery's conduct breached his duty of care towards the plaintiff, resulting in significant financial loss. The case was remanded for further submissions to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff.