Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia

Inglis (the appellant) brought an action against the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (the respondent) in the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged liability for the appellant's loss arising from the respondent's conduct in relation to a company known as "The Company". The appellant claimed that the respondent, through its actions and omissions, had caused or contributed to the financial collapse of The Company, resulting in a loss to the appellant.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant in its dealings with The Company, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondent's actions, including the provision of financial advice and the management of The Company's accounts, fell below the standard of care expected of a bank in such circumstances, and whether this breach caused the appellant's loss.

The Court ultimately found that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant in the circumstances of the case. The majority reasoned that the relationship between the bank and the company, and by extension its shareholders, did not give rise to a duty of care in tort for economic loss. The bank's role was primarily that of a creditor and financial advisor to the company, and the losses suffered by the appellant were consequential to the company's own financial difficulties, rather than a direct result of any negligent misstatement or action by the bank towards the appellant personally. The principles of *Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd* were considered, but the court held that the specific facts did not establish the necessary proximity or assumption of responsibility to impose a duty of care on the bank towards the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed.