Roberts v State Bank of New South Wales; Roberts v State Bank of New South Wales

In *Roberts v State Bank of New South Wales*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered appeals arising from a dispute between Mr. Roberts and the State Bank of New South Wales. The core of the disagreement concerned the Bank's alleged breach of duty in its dealings with Mr. Roberts, particularly in relation to a loan facility and subsequent actions taken by the Bank.

The Court was required to determine whether the Bank owed Mr. Roberts a duty of care in its conduct concerning the loan facility and, if so, whether that duty had been breached. Further, the Court had to consider whether the Bank's actions constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the relevant consumer protection legislation. The question of whether the Bank's conduct was unconscionable was also central to the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the Bank did owe Mr. Roberts a duty of care, and that this duty had been breached. The Court reasoned that the Bank's conduct in relation to the loan facility and its subsequent actions were not only negligent but also amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct. Furthermore, the Court held that the Bank's behaviour was unconscionable, applying established principles of equity and consumer protection law.

The appeals were allowed, and the Court ordered that the Bank pay damages to Mr. Roberts. The quantum of damages was to be determined, with liberty to the parties to approach the Court if agreement could not be reached.