The Court struck out the entire amended statement of claim with leave to re-plead, finding it incoherent, pitched at too high a level of generality, containing submissions rather than material facts, and advancing numerous misconceived causes of action not mentioned in the writ indorsement (including claims under the ACL which does not apply to financial services per s 131A of the Competition and Consumer Act, and claims based on breaches of the Banking Code of Practice and various provisions of the Banking Act and Corporations Act that do not give rise to private causes of action). Summary judgment on standing grounds was refused because it was unclear whether claims were brought personally or as trustee, and there was a factual dispute about whether the co-trustee had been removed. The Court left open whether a bank owes a duty of care in the circumstances alleged, noting this may raise a difficult question of law better resolved at trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members.