You web browser may not be properly supported. To use this site and all its features we recommend using the latest versions of Chrome, Safari or Firefox

It is timely to re-examine how far a bank’s duties extend to its customers.

The Senate Economics References Committee recently published a report – Agribusiness managed investment schemes – examining the Great Southern and Timbercorp collapses. These events had devastating impacts on largely inexperienced or unsophisticated retail investors. In the course of making its recommendations, the report examined the involvement of banks and considered that investment lending was instrumental in facilitating the significant financial losses for retail investors.

Does a bank owe a general duty of care to investor borrowers?

Banking, the provision of financial services and credit are all areas regulated by legislation. The banker-customer relationship is, however, essentially one of contract. The general law does not impose a duty of care on banks.

The National Consumer Credit regime has however imposed statutory obligations onto the banker-consumer borrower relationship since 2010 but not in respect of investment or business loans.

Outside the provisions of the National Consumer Credit regime, business borrowers have occasionally succeeded in establishing that a bank owed more than simply contractual obligations. One example was the 2004 decision of Timms v CBA; CBA v Timms [2004] NSWSC 76. In Timms, the borrowers sought a loan to finance the purchase of a business. The bank investigated the viability of the proposed business and although it was concerned that the business was in a ‘parlous financial state’ proceeded ultimately to approve the loan. The business entered voluntary administration. The borrowers succeeded and made out that the bank represented to them that the business they proposed to purchase was viable when in fact it was not.

Agribusiness and investment lending

The National Consumer Credit regime also does not presently apply to investment loans (other than interest only residential investment loans).

The Bitter Harvest report noted that technically the banks were “legally distant” from the loan arrangements – that is, banks were not directly involved in arranging the loans and therefore no legal duty of care was made out. The committee did say that the banks should be held responsible for allowing borrowers to enter into unsafe loans and “ethically … owed a duty of care to borrowers”. In the case of Great Southern, the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank funded Great Southern Finance which was the lender to investor borrowers and in the case of Timbercorp, ANZ financed Timbercorp Securities.

The Senate report has recommended that investment lending in general be brought under the purview of the National Consumer Credit regime.

The Senate report has also recommended that responsible lending practices be implemented for finance for investment loans advanced to retail investors. The recommendation is that this provision apply both when a bank lends directly to an investor, and where a bank lends to a managed investment scheme such as Timbercorp Securities or Great Southern Finance. The effect of doing so would impose responsible lending obligations on the credit provider in providing or arranging credit for investment purposes.

Investment lending, whether margin loans or loans for investment in other financial products, carries substantial risk and has caused substantial losses. Although changes come too late for Timbercorp and Great Southern investors, for retail investors in future the strengthening of consumer protection around investment lending is a positive development.

Questions? Get in touch today.

The contents of this blog post are considered accurate as at the date of publication. However the applicable laws may be subject to change, thereby affecting the accuracy of the article. The information contained in this blog post is of a general nature only and is not specific to anyone’s personal circumstances. Please seek legal advice before acting on any of the information contained in this post.

Thank you for your feedback.

Related blog posts

Consumer and the Law
Liar loans: how mortgage brokers are putting clients at risk

The term ‘liar loans’ has been coined on the back of the Banking Royal Commission. This is because studies have shown almost 40 per cent of loan applications completed through mortgage brokers contained at least one factually incorrect statement. Whether mortgage brokers are providing lenders with incorrect information, or information that is out-of-date, they are putting themselves – and their clients – at risk. A recent study conducted by the Consumer Credit Legal Centre in New South Wales identified some mortgage brokers were breaking the law when filling out loan applications for their clients. Common examples included brokers suggesting their clients provide a different answer...

Planning desk close up documentresize
Consumer and the Law
How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acts as the middleperson between financial firms and consumers or small businesses, offering free and independent dispute resolution services. It deals with complaints about financial advice, insurance, banking and superannuation products and services. While the time limit to lodge a complaint to AFCA is usually between two and six years, the Australian Government recently created the opportunity for those with complaints up to 10 years old to come forward. This means consumers and small businesses have until 30 June 2020 to lodge complaints dating back to 1 January 2008. To lodge a complaint, you must follow AFCA’s process. It is...

How to lodge a complaint with Australian Financial Complaints Authority
Business Law
Proposed Changes to the Franchising Code of Conduct

Franchising is big business in Australia, with approximately 1,120 franchise systems and 79,000 franchise units operating nationally1. As franchising is a diverse sector with characteristics that are unique from other business models, franchises are governed by a mandatory Franchising Code of Conduct (Franchising Code).2 The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recently completed an inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Franchising Code and has released the Fairness in Franchising Report (Report).3 Some of the key findings and recommendations of the report are discussed below. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish an...

Waitress In Black Apron Upload

We're here to help

Start your online claim check now. Or, if you have a question, get in touch with our team.