A written warning in a guarantee document may not constitute a 'prominent notice' under cl 28.4(a) of the Banking Code if the document is presented in a rushed signing meeting where the guarantor has limited time to review it, the bank officer gives an incomplete oral summary competing for the guarantor's attention, and the bank knows the guarantor is not reading the documents. Where the bank breaches its cl 28.5 obligation to allow overnight review, the standard of prominence required is heightened. Banks should consider posting guarantee documentation or delivering it for overnight review to ensure compliance. The question was decided 2-1, with Ferguson JA dissenting on the basis that the written warnings were objectively prominent given the guarantor's business experience.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.