Peter Robert Horrobin v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

In *Peter Robert Horrobin v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd* [1996] NSWCA 251, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Peter Robert Horrobin, and the respondent, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it involved an appeal from a lower court's decision.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent bank had breached its duty of care to the appellant. This duty of care was alleged to have arisen in circumstances where the bank provided financial advice or services to the appellant, and the appellant suffered loss as a result. The court was required to determine the scope of the bank's obligations and whether those obligations had been transgressed.

The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the respondent bank did not owe the appellant a duty of care in the circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the relationship between the parties and the specific advice or services provided by the bank. It was determined that the bank's conduct did not extend to assuming a responsibility to protect the appellant from the particular loss he suffered, and therefore, no breach of duty occurred.