Chand v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The case of *Chand v Commonwealth Bank of Australia* concerned a dispute between Mr. Chand and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The matter came before the High Court of Australia, with the judgment delivered by Kiefel and Gageler JJ.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commonwealth Bank of Australia had breached its duty of care to Mr. Chand by failing to adequately warn him about the risks associated with a particular investment product. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the bank's duty to advise and warn its customers about the potential for significant financial loss when recommending or facilitating investments.

Kiefel and Gageler JJ reasoned that a bank's duty of care in providing financial advice or facilitating investments extends to warning customers of foreseeable risks, particularly where the customer is unsophisticated or relies heavily on the bank's expertise. The court applied principles of negligence, emphasizing that the extent of the duty is determined by the circumstances, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the complexity of the product, and the vulnerability of the customer. The judges found that the bank had failed to discharge its duty by not adequately informing Mr. Chand of the specific risks inherent in the investment, which led to his substantial financial detriment.

The High Court allowed Mr. Chand's appeal, finding that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia had breached its duty of care. The matter was remitted to the lower court for determination of the quantum of damages.