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 revolved around 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 in relation to its conduct in advising him and facilitating his investment in a particular financial product, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. This involved an examination of the nature of the relationship between a bank and its customer, particularly when the bank undertakes to provide financial advice or facilitate investments.

The Court considered the principles governing the duty of care owed by a bank to its customer, drawing on established case law. It analysed the circumstances under which such a duty might arise, focusing on the extent of the bank's involvement and the reasonable expectations of the customer. The Court ultimately found that the Bank had not breached any duty of care owed to Mr Pollak, concluding that the Bank's conduct did not fall below the standard expected of a reasonable bank in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.