Legal Research
Cases
Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd

Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 16 August 2000 79 min read

Contents

On this page

Reported Decision: [2000] 158 FLR 142

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 805

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2676/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 27, 28 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 16 August 2000

PARTIES :

Peter Raymond Blacker and Christine Blacker (P)
National Australia Bank Limited (D)

JUDGMENT OF: Young J

COUNSEL : D B McGovern and LJW Aitken (P)
P R Graham QC and JE Thomson (D)

SOLICITORS: Commins Hendriks (P)
Dibbs Crowther & Osborne (D)

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS [146]- Harsh and unconscionable contract- Bank persuading customer to take out loan to fund unviable project- Application fails on the facts. PROCEDURE [24]- Cross-vesting- Federal Court with no jurisdiction to hear one aspect of case- Whether Supreme Court can deal with that aspect under Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act, 1999.

LEGISLATION CITED: Contracts Review Act 1980, ss 7, 9, 16
Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999, s 11

CASES CITED: Adley v The Whitstable Co (1810) 17 Ves 316; 34 ER 122
Amcor Ltd v Watson [2000] Aust Contract Rep 90-110
Arbest Pty Ltd v State Bank of NSW Ltd (1996) ATPR 41-481
Benana Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation - C/A - 26.4.1990
Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd v Karavas (1991) 23 NSWLR 256
Byrnes v R (1999) 73 ALJR 1292
Cockburn v Thompson (1809) 16 Ves 321; 33 ER 1005
Elders Rural Finance Ltd v Smith (1996) 41 NSWLR 296
Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189
Gough v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1994] ASC 56-270
Levett v Levett [1957] P 156
Mills v Mills [1963] P 329
Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 801
Pryor v City Officers Co (1883) 10 QBD 504
R v Cth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Ex parte Barrett (1945) 70 CLR 141
Radin v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1998] ACL 110 FC 26
Rochester Communications Group Pty Ltd v Adler (1996) 65 FCR 572
Smith v Smith (1986) 161 CLR 217
Spence v Davidson - Master Cohen, 2.3.1978
Super John Pty Ltd v Futuris Rural Pty Ltd (1999) 32 ACSR 398
Taylor v Salmon (1838) 4 My & Cr 134; 41 ER 53
Wallworth v Holt (1841) 4 My & Cr 619; 41 ER 238
West v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 610
Younan v Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd - C/A - 21.11.1994

DECISION: Proceedings dismissed.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG J

WEDNESDAY 16 AUGUST 2000
2676/2000 - BLACKER v NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: These are rather odd proceedings. Essentially the plaintiffs seek orders under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (to which I will refer as the “CRA”). However, the procedural position is complicated because the plaintiffs originally included their application as part of a complicated set of proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in which they claimed relief under the Trade Practices Act 1975 and certain other relief.
2 The Federal Court proceedings were heard…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 805
Decision Date: 16 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd, the case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Blacker, and the defendant, National Australia Bank Limited. Mr. Blacker alleged that the bank engaged in unconscionable conduct by encouraging him to take out a loan to fund a project that was ultimately unviable, which led to significant financial loss. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether the bank's actions amounted to a harsh and unconscionable contract under Australian consumer law.

The court had to determine whether the bank's persuasion and the terms of the loan contract were unconscionable. This required an assessment of the nature of the contract, the relative bargaining power of the parties, and whether the bank took advantage of Mr. Blacker's circumstances. The court also had to consider whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear all aspects of the case, given that one aspect potentially fell under state jurisdiction.

The court found that while the bank's conduct may have been aggressive, it did not reach the threshold of being unconscionable. The court reasoned that Mr. Blacker was not in a position of special disadvantage and had the opportunity to seek independent advice. Additionally, the court concluded that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over one aspect of the case, which related to state law. The court held that this aspect could be dealt with by the Supreme Court under the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act, 1999.

The final orders of the court were that the application for relief under the Australian Consumer Law was dismissed, and the matter was referred to the Supreme Court for the aspect concerning state jurisdiction. This decision highlights the importance of assessing both the nature of the contract and the jurisdiction of the court in cases involving complex financial arrangements and consumer protection laws.

Orders