Siwicki v NAB

The dispute arose between Siwicki and the National Australia Bank (NAB) and involved issues of unconscionable dealing, duress, and undue influence. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The case centred on whether the bank had acted unconscionably by proceeding with a consent judgment, where the wife had allegedly been influenced by her husband to agree to the judgment without proper legal advice.

The court was tasked with determining whether the bank had actual or constructive knowledge of the husband's undue influence on the wife and whether the bank was required to make further enquiries about the solicitors' authority. The court also needed to assess whether the bank had acted unconscionably by proceeding with the consent judgment without ensuring that the wife had independent legal representation and advice.

The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the bank had actual or constructive knowledge of the husband's undue influence, nor was there a basis for alleging that the bank should have made further enquiries. The court held that the wife's solicitors had the authority to act on her behalf, and that the bank was not required to make additional inquiries regarding the wife's representation. Consequently, the court dismissed the wife's claim to set aside the consent judgment.

The court ruled that the bank had not acted unconscionably and that the wife's action was unsustainable. The court dismissed the wife's claim and awarded costs to the bank. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that borrowers have independent legal advice and that banks should not proceed with consent judgments without verifying the authority of the solicitors acting on behalf of the borrowers.