Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as T'ee for Meakin Investment Trust v Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (No 2)

In the case of Mineral Resources Engineering Services Pty Ltd as trustee for Meakin Investment Trust and Hay v Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the plaintiffs brought claims against the defendant bank alleging unconscionable conduct, breaches of statutory provisions, and other related claims. The plaintiffs contended that the bank's prioritisation of its relationship with another company, of which the plaintiffs were clients, amounted to unconscionable conduct. The bank applied to strike out parts of the statement of claim, arguing that the allegations were not adequately supported and failed to sufficiently inform the defendant of the plaintiffs' case. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with deciding whether the parts of the statement of claim in question should be struck out.

The legal issues before the Court centred on the adequacy of the plaintiffs' pleadings concerning their claims of unconscionable conduct and breaches of statutory provisions. The Court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently explained why the bank's concern to maintain its relationship with another company was unconscionable, and how that relationship motivated the bank to maintain rather than decrease borrowing limits. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the plaintiffs had adequately identified how the bank exploited its superior position to engage in certain conduct, which was relevant to characterising the bank's conduct as unconscionable.

The Court found that the plaintiffs' statement of claim failed to adequately explain why the bank's concern to maintain its relationship with another company was unconscionable or how that relationship motivated the bank to maintain rather than decrease borrowing limits. The Court also determined that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently identified how the bank exploited its superior position to engage in certain conduct. Consequently, the Court struck out the relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim as they did not provide sufficient information to inform the defendant of the plaintiffs' case. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' failure to adequately explain these aspects rendered the claims of unconscionable conduct and breaches of statutory provisions inadequately supported.

The Court ordered that specific paragraphs of the statement of claim be struck out, as they failed to adequately inform the defendant of the plaintiffs' case and were insufficiently supported. In SC No 6906 of 2010, paragraphs 77, 77A, 78, 79, 86 87(cf), 88, 89 and any references to those paragraphs within the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 26 May 2015 were struck out. Similarly, in SC No 6907 of 2010, paragraphs 81, 81A, 82, 83, 84(cd) 85, 86 and any references to those paragraphs within the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 27 May 2015 were struck out.