Story v Advance Bank Australia Limited &

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal in the matter of *Story v Advance Bank Australia Limited & Fleetwood Star Pty Limited*. The applicant, Helen Patricia Susan Story, sought leave to appeal a decision concerning the application of provisions within the Companies Code relating to the indoor management rule and the binding effect of forged documents on companies.

The central legal issue before the Court was the scope and interpretation of section 68A of the Companies Code, particularly concerning when a company is bound by forged documents. Specifically, the Court had to determine the meaning of "a person having dealings with a company" and whether this phrase encompassed situations where the only interaction was a purported, forged transaction, without any actual communication or discussion between the company and the other party. The Court also considered the effect of section 68D, which outlines circumstances where section 68A operates notwithstanding forgery, unless there is actual knowledge of the forgery.

The applicant argued that the provisions of the Companies Code, if applied literally, could lead to companies being bound by any forged document, even those created by employees without any genuine dealings. The Court's reasoning focused on the phrase "a person having dealings with a company," suggesting that the section was intended to apply only where there were actual dealings to which one could point. The applicant contended that in this case, there were no such dealings between the company and the bank, as the only interaction was a forged document, and there had been no communication or discussion.