Chand v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The appeal in *Chand v Commonwealth Bank of Australia* concerned a dispute arising from the admitted breach of contract by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the Bank) in failing to implement a redemption request made by the appellant. The matter was heard by Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, and Ward JA.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's failure to lodge a fresh redemption request after the Bank's initial breach broke the chain of causation for any loss claimed, and whether this failure constituted a novus actus interveniens. Additionally, the court was required to consider whether the appellant had acted unreasonably in mitigation of their loss, and how damages should be assessed where no actual loss was suffered at the date of the breach but a prospective loss was claimed.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's decision not to lodge a fresh redemption request was a free and informed one, and that this decision, rather than the Bank's initial breach, was the cause of any subsequent loss. The court applied principles of causation and mitigation, determining that the appellant had not acted unreasonably in their mitigation efforts, but that the chain of causation had been broken by their subsequent actions. The assessment of damages was therefore affected by this finding.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.