Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Case [1995] HCATrans 257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S171 of 1994

B e t w e e n -

JOSEPH RICHARD BRYANT

Applicant

and

COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

DEANE J
TOOHEY J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 1995, AT 10.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

TOOHEY J:   This application for special leave to appeal was considered by Justices Deane, Gummow and myself.  We would refuse the application.  I publish the grounds for our decision.

The order of the Court is that the application for special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

AT 10.17 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1995] HCATrans 257
Case
[1995] HCATrans 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia* concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Bryant, and the defendant, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth Bank had acted in breach of its duty of care to Mr Bryant, a customer, by failing to warn him of the risks associated with a particular investment scheme. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the bank's duty of care in providing financial advice or information to its customers, and whether that duty extended to advising on the prudence of specific investments.

The High Court considered the established principles regarding the duty of care owed by banks to their customers. It was held that while a bank owes a duty of care to its customers, this duty does not generally extend to advising on the merits or risks of particular investments unless there are special circumstances. Such special circumstances might arise if the bank assumes a role of giving financial advice or if the customer is particularly vulnerable and relies on the bank for such advice. In this instance, the court found that the relationship between the bank and Mr Bryant did not give rise to a duty to warn him about the specific investment, as the bank had not assumed a role of financial advisor in relation to that particular transaction.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.