Williams v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The core of the disagreement revolved around allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct and misrepresentation made by the Bank, purportedly in breach of section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). The matter came before the Court of Appeal following a trial where the appellants sought to establish their claims.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether a statement sent by the Bank's solicitor to the appellants' solicitor during mediation constituted a misrepresentation. Specifically, the court had to determine if sending such a statement implied that the person attributed with its content had approved it, or that the person had not refused to sign it. Furthermore, the court was required to consider whether the Bank's conduct in sending the statement amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act*. The court also had to address whether the appellants' cause of action under section 52 was barred by the limitation period stipulated in section 82(2) of the Act, given that the proceedings were initiated by a cross-claim. Finally, the court was asked to determine if the appellants had affirmed a settlement reached at mediation, and if a miscarriage of the trial proceedings prevented the appellate court from making necessary findings.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had made errors in his findings of fact, which were demonstrable through the documentary evidence and the trial transcript. These errors led to a miscarriage of the trial process, meaning the appellate court could not rely on the trial judge's findings. The court determined that the sending of the statement during mediation did not, in the circumstances, amount to a representation that the person attributed with its content had approved it, nor that they had not refused to sign it. However, the court allowed the appeal, indicating that the errors at trial were significant enough to warrant intervention.

The appeal was allowed with costs.