Pollak v National Australia Bank S87/2000

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Pollak v National Australia Bank* concerning a dispute between the appellant, Mr Pollak, and the respondent, National Australia Bank. The core of the disagreement related to the Bank's alleged breach of its duty of care to Mr Pollak in its dealings with him as a customer.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Bank owed Mr Pollak a duty of care to advise him about the risks associated with a particular investment product, specifically a managed investment scheme, and whether the Bank had breached that duty. This involved considering the nature of the relationship between a bank and its customer, particularly when the bank is involved in recommending or facilitating investments.

The Court ultimately found that the Bank did not owe Mr Pollak a duty to advise him on the risks of the investment. Their Honours, McHugh and Callinan JJ, reasoned that while a bank owes a duty of care to its customers in certain circumstances, this duty did not extend to providing investment advice in the manner alleged by Mr Pollak. The nature of the transaction and the information provided by the Bank did not create an obligation to warn of all potential risks inherent in the investment scheme itself, which was a product offered by a third party. The appeal was dismissed.