National Australia Bank Ltd v Hann Nominees Pty Ltd

National Australia Bank Ltd v Hann Nominees Pty Ltd was a case heard by the Federal Court of Australia, in which the plaintiff, National Australia Bank Ltd (the Bank), sought damages from the defendant, Hann Nominees Pty Ltd (Hann), for the submission of a misleading and deceptive valuation of a property, as well as for breach of a duty of care. The Bank had made a loan to a company, Denis Dean, secured by a mortgage over a property, and relied on a valuation submitted by Hann to determine the value of the security. The Bank claimed that the valuation was misleading and deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act and that Hann had breached a duty of care owed to the Bank.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether Hann had breached a duty of care owed to the Bank by submitting a misleading and deceptive valuation and whether the Bank had been contributorily negligent in disbursing the remaining loan funds in disregard of its own stipulation that they be used for developmental works on the property. The court had to determine the extent to which the Bank's damages were reduced due to its contributory negligence and whether the Bank's cause of action under the Trade Practices Act had been barred by the statute of limitations.

The court found that Hann had breached a duty of care owed to the Bank by submitting a valuation that was misleading and deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. However, the court also found that the Bank's cause of action under the Trade Practices Act had been barred by the statute of limitations. The court further found that the Bank's damages were reduced by 20% for its contributory negligence in disbursing the remaining loan funds in disregard of its own stipulation that they be used for developmental works on the property. The court held that the measure of the Bank's damages was that applicable to a "no transaction" case, i.e. the whole of the moneys advanced together with accrued interest and the costs associated with the mortgagee's sale, less the gross proceeds from that sale.

The court ordered that judgment be entered for the Bank for damages calculated in accordance with the above, reduced by 20% for the Bank's contributory negligence. The court reserved liberty to apply for interest and costs.