McKinnon v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

McKinnon and others brought an appeal against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, challenging the bank's decision to deny them an extension of their mortgage payment holiday due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appellants were not directly affected by the bank’s decision. The appellants argued that they were indirectly impacted due to their financial reliance on the businesses that were affected by the pandemic.

The central issue before the court was whether the appellants had standing to bring the appeal, specifically whether they had suffered a special injury that was directly attributable to the bank’s decision. The court had to determine whether the appellants' financial difficulties due to the pandemic and reliance on affected businesses constituted a sufficient special injury to grant them standing. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the primary judge correctly applied the legal principles regarding standing and special injury.

The court held that the appellants did not have standing to bring the appeal as they had not demonstrated a direct special injury from the bank’s decision. The court emphasised that for an appellant to have standing, there must be a direct causal link between the decision and the injury claimed. The court found that the appellants' financial difficulties were a result of the broader economic impacts of the pandemic and not a direct consequence of the bank's decision. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The appellants were also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the Notice of Motion.