Bertola v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

The plaintiffs, Bertola and others, sought damages against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) and others, primarily for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other causes of action arising from the sale of their family businesses. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs contended that ANZ, as their financial advisor and trustee for their respective discretionary trusts, failed to act in their best interests during the sale of their businesses. The defendants, ANZ and others, filed applications to strike out the plaintiffs' statements of claim, arguing that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' statements of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the defendants. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead their claims and that the claims were statute-barred. The court considered whether the statements of claim contained sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case, and if the claims were brought within the relevant limitation periods. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiffs had any arguable basis for their claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

The court found that the statements of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action in relation to the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other causes of action. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead their claims, and that the claims were statute-barred. However, the court granted the first and second plaintiffs leave to file a minute of a proposed amended statement of claim against the first defendant in respect of the alleged sale in breach of the duty of good faith. The defendants' applications to strike out the statements of claim were successful, and the claims were dismissed, except for the limited leave granted to the first and second plaintiffs to amend their claims.