Nigel Keith Flowers v National Australia Bank Limited (ACN 004 044 937)

Nigel Keith Flowers brought an application against National Australia Bank Limited seeking to set aside a consent judgment. The dispute arose from a settlement agreement between the parties that had been reached, which involved the consent judgment. Flowers argued that the judgment had been obtained contrary to the settlement agreement, and further, that the settlement agreement contained an implied term incorporating the Banking Code of Practice. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court considered whether there was an arguable case that the consent judgment had been obtained contrary to the settlement agreement, and whether the settlement agreement contained an implied term incorporating the Banking Code of Practice. The court noted that in order to succeed in setting aside a consent judgment, the applicant must demonstrate that there is an arguable case that the judgment was obtained without their informed consent, or that there has been a material change in circumstances since the judgment was entered. The court also considered whether the settlement agreement contained an implied term incorporating the Banking Code of Practice.

The court found that there was no arguable case that the consent judgment had been obtained contrary to the settlement agreement, and that the settlement agreement did not contain an implied term incorporating the Banking Code of Practice. The court noted that the settlement agreement expressly provided that it was not subject to any code of practice or any other external regulation, and that the parties had negotiated the terms of the agreement themselves. The court held that the applicant had failed to establish an arguable case that the consent judgment had been obtained contrary to the settlement agreement, and that there was no basis for implying a term incorporating the Banking Code of Practice into the settlement agreement. The court therefore dismissed the application and ordered that the proceedings be summarily disposed of.

The court's decision was based on the express terms of the settlement agreement, which provided that it was not subject to any code of practice or any other external regulation. The court found that the applicant had failed to establish an arguable case that the consent judgment had been obtained contrary to the settlement agreement, or that the settlement agreement contained an implied term incorporating the Banking Code of Practice. The court therefore dismissed the application and ordered that the proceedings be summarily disposed of.