Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited v Bank of China

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The respondent was the Bank of China. The core of the dispute concerned the meaning and effect of endorsements commonly used in financing documents within international trade, and whether the Court of Appeal had impermissibly interfered with findings of fact made by the trial judge.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the interpretation of endorsements in international trade financing documents was a matter of public importance warranting the grant of special leave. Secondly, and more significantly, whether the Court of Appeal had erred by making findings of fact that were inconsistent with those of the trial judge, thereby constituting an impermissible interference with the primary judge's assessment of witness credit and the conclusions drawn from their evidence.

The applicant argued that the trial judge had made a definitive finding that the applicant's understanding was that verification of signatures equated to verification of the letter of credit itself, not merely an opinion on signature correspondence. This finding, it was submitted, was based on the credit of witnesses and was therefore a pure finding of fact that the Court of Appeal should not have disturbed. The applicant contended that the Court of Appeal's approach, which appeared to re-evaluate the evidence and reach different conclusions about what the applicant's officers thought, was an impermissible interference with the trial judge's factual findings.

The High Court granted special leave to appeal.