Kojic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

In the matter of Kojic v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the dispute centred around the purchase of property by SCS, a company, which was partially financed by an unsecured loan and partially by a bank loan secured by a mortgage. The plaintiffs, the Kojics, alleged that the defendant bank had engaged in unconscionable conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974, leading to financial loss. The court had to determine whether the knowledge of the bank could be considered as the aggregate knowledge of its officers, and whether the transactions involved constituted a single transaction given the specific circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to consider the implications of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Apportionment of Liability) Act 2001 on the calculation of damages, particularly the availability of reductions for contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability among multiple wrongdoers.

The primary legal issues revolved around the definition of "knowledge" within the context of corporate entities and individual officers, the characterisation of the transactions, and the application of statutory provisions regarding contributory negligence and apportionment of liability. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the bank's liability for unconscionable conduct could be apportioned among the parties involved and if the Contribution Act applied to the statutory liability in question. The court also needed to assess the nature of the unconscionable conduct and how it affected the calculation of damages, taking into account the conduct of all parties involved.

The court found that the bank's liability for unconscionable conduct was indeed apportionable under the Contribution Act, despite the statutory nature of the liability. It concluded that the findings regarding the Kojics’ failure to properly attend to their interests constituted contributory negligence, and the bank's and conveyancer's conduct amounted to negligent wrongdoing. Therefore, the damages to which the Kojics were entitled should first be reduced for their contributory negligence and then apportioned among the parties involved according to their respective liabilities. The court ruled that the Contribution Act applied to the bank's and conveyancer's conduct as it extended to liabilities arising from breaches of contractual or tortious duties of care and statutory liabilities of that character.

The court ordered that the damages to which the plaintiffs were entitled should be reduced by the appropriate proportions for their contributory negligence and then apportioned among the bank, the conveyancer, and Blanusa according to their respective liabilities. This decision highlights the complexity of apportioning liability in cases involving multiple parties and statutory liabilities.