For the purposes of s 6(1)(b) of the UCCC, where a credit contract has been entered into, the test for whether credit was provided for personal, domestic or household purposes is an objective one focused on the substance of the transaction, not the debtor's subjective intention. A business purpose declaration under s 11(2) is ineffective where the credit provider had reason to believe the credit was for personal purposes, but the averment presumption under s 11(1) may still be rebutted by objective evidence of business purpose. Under clause 25.1 of the Code of Banking Practice 2004, a mere departure from a bank's internal guidelines (such as valuation age limits) does not of itself establish a breach of the prudential obligation; the standard is the objective one of a diligent and prudent banker applied to all the circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.