Guijar v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Guijar

This matter concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales between Mr Guijar and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. The dispute arose from Mr Guijar's claim that the Bank had breached oral contracts by placing funds into a term deposit instead of using them to pay off the principal of a loan. Mr Guijar also alleged that a Bank employee had acted with actual or ostensible authority. The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether oral contracts had been formed, the extent of the employee's authority, and the appropriate measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the Supreme Court had erred in law in its previous decision. Specifically, the Court examined whether the Supreme Court had provided adequate reasons for its findings and whether the evidence warranted a new trial. The Court also had to determine whether to exercise its power to remit the matter for re-trial under s 41(1)(c) of the Local Courts Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the Bank leave to appeal and allowed its appeal. It found that a retrial would be futile and that the Bank was entitled to succeed as a matter of law on the evidence presented at the first trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the Supreme Court's orders and dismissed Mr Guijar's appeal from the Local Court's decision, ordering Mr Guijar to pay the Bank's costs of the applications for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.