Tanna v Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG; Saad v Barwick

In *Tanna v Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG* and *Saad v Barwick*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered appeals arising from separate proceedings that were consolidated for the purpose of the appeal. The primary dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract in relation to financial products, specifically a foreign currency option and a loan facility. The appellants, Mr. Tanna and Mr. and Mrs. Saad, alleged that the respondents, Deutsche Bank (Asia) AG and Mr. Barwick, engaged in conduct that caused them significant financial loss.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondents had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) and/or the *Contracts Review Act 1980* (NSW). Further issues included whether the respondents had breached their contractual obligations to the appellants and whether the loan agreements and related transactions were unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. The Court also considered the admissibility of certain evidence and the appropriate assessment of damages.

The Court analysed the conduct of the parties in light of the relevant statutory provisions and common law principles. It examined the representations made by the respondents concerning the risks and nature of the financial products, and whether these representations were misleading or deceptive. The Court also considered the terms of the loan agreements and the circumstances surrounding their execution, including the financial sophistication of the appellants and the bargaining power of the respondents. The Court applied principles relating to causation, reliance, and the assessment of damages in cases of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the primary judge had not erred in his findings of fact or application of the law. The Court concluded that the respondents had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, nor had they breached their contractual obligations. The loan agreements were found to be valid and enforceable, and the transactions were not unconscionable. Consequently, the orders of the primary judge were affirmed.