Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Dinh [No 2]

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, acting as a secured creditor, sought to enforce a personal loan agreement against the defendant, Dinh, due to alleged default. Dinh raised a counterclaim to set aside the transaction documents, claiming that the loan agreement was unconscionable due to misleading conduct. Dinh also argued that the bank breached the Banking Code of Practice by not considering his inability to speak or read English. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the loan agreement was unconscionable and whether the bank breached the Banking Code of Practice by not considering the defendant's language barriers.

The court found that the loan agreement was not unconscionable because Dinh had received independent legal advice and had signed the agreement. The court acknowledged that Dinh's inability to speak or read English might have impacted his understanding of the agreement, but this alone did not render the agreement unconscionable. The court also found that the bank did not breach the Banking Code of Practice because the bank had provided Dinh with a translation of the loan agreement, and Dinh had signed the agreement after receiving independent legal advice. The court emphasised that the case turned on its own facts and did not establish a broad precedent.

As a result, the court dismissed the counterclaim and ordered Dinh to pay the outstanding amount of the loan to the bank. The court also ordered Dinh to pay the bank's costs of the proceeding. The court did not make any orders regarding the bank's potential breach of the Banking Code of Practice as the court found that there was no breach. Overall, the court found in favour of the bank and dismissed Dinh's counterclaim.