SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
Case Title: | Gary Nigel Roberts v Westpac Banking Corporation |
Citation: | [2016] ACTCA 68 |
Hearing Dates: | 1–2 August 2016 |
Decision Date: | 13 December 2016 |
Reasons Date: | 13 December 2016 |
Before: | Murrell CJ, Burns and Gilmour JJ |
Decision: | 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed. |
Catchwords: | NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – Whether bank owes a duty to customers to protect them from the actions of criminal third parties – where primary judge found no duty owed – appeal dismissed. |
Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 40, 42, 43, 45, 45(1) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5D, 5D(1) Liquor Act 1982 (NSW) |
Cases Cited: | Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; 239 CLR 420 Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; 201 CLR 552 PAB Security Pty Ltd v Mahina [2009] NSWCA 125 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gary Nigel Roberts v Westpac Banking Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] ACTCA 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether a bank owes a duty of care to its customers to protect them from the criminal conduct of third parties. The primary judge had determined that no such duty was owed, and the appeal sought to challenge this finding.
The Court of Appeal, comprising Murrell CJ, Burns and Gilmour JJ, dismissed the appeal. Their Honours upheld the primary judge's conclusion that a bank does not owe a general duty of care to its customers to protect them from the criminal actions of third parties. The court applied established principles of negligence law, which generally do not impose a duty on one party to protect another from the independent criminal acts of a stranger, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present in this case.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed.
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.