Thompson v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd

In Thompson v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd, the plaintiffs sought equitable relief against the lender, alleging that the lender engaged in unconscionable conduct by not acting on their knowledge of the fraudulent activities of their broker. The broker had, 14 years prior, been entrusted with the plaintiffs' funds for the purpose of purchasing an investment property, but had instead misappropriated the funds. The fraud was discovered 12 years ago, and the broker was subsequently imprisoned. The plaintiffs repaid the loan to the lender nine years ago, after which they brought this action against the lender, claiming that the lender had failed to act on their knowledge of the fraud, which they argued amounted to unconscionable conduct. The plaintiffs argued that the statutory provisions in the ASIC Act, which provide for equitable relief in cases of unconscionable conduct, should be applied by analogy to this case, despite the fact that the events in question occurred well before the statutory provisions came into effect.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to apply the statutory provisions in the ASIC Act by analogy to the plaintiffs' claim, and if so, when the limitation period for such a claim would begin to run. The court had to consider whether it would be unjust to apply the statutory provisions from the point at which the plaintiffs became aware of the fraud, or whether it would be more appropriate to apply the provisions from the point at which the statutory provisions themselves came into effect.

The court found that it was not unjust to apply the statutory provisions by analogy to the plaintiffs' claim, and that the limitation period for such a claim would begin to run from the point at which the plaintiffs became aware of the fraud. The court reasoned that the purpose of the statutory provisions was to provide relief for victims of unconscionable conduct, and that it would be unjust to deny the plaintiffs relief simply because the events in question occurred before the statutory provisions came into effect. The court also found that it was not unjust to apply the provisions from the point at which the plaintiffs became aware of the fraud, as this would provide a fair and reasonable outcome for both parties. The court held that the plaintiffs' claim was not time-barred, and that the lender was liable for the unconscionable conduct of their broker.

The court ordered the lender to pay the plaintiffs compensation for the loss they suffered as a result of the broker's fraudulent conduct. The court also ordered the lender to pay interest on the compensation from the date that the plaintiffs became aware of the fraud, and to pay the plaintiffs' legal costs.