feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

August 5, 2010

When is a cheque dishonour defamatory?

The High Court of Australia has decided that (by a majority of 3 to 2) Westpac’s return of 30 cheques marked “Refer to Drawer” was defamatory of its customer’s principal. It awarded the plaintiff damages of $50,000 plus interest.

In Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Limited [2010] HCA 25 the High Court rejected Westpac’s claim of qualified privilege.

In earlier proceedings a jury found proved defamatory imputations including those that a rental agency (Homewise) had passed valueless trust account cheques and that Mr Aktas had caused this to happen.

The High Court decided that while notice of dishonour had to be given by the bank within a reasonable time it was the reason given by Westpac for the notice of dishonour which was the basis of the action by Mr Aktas against Westpac.

At no time were there insufficient funds in the trust account to meet the cheques. The failure to honour the cheques was in breach of the term in the contract of banker and customer between Westpac and Homewise that the customer’s cheques be honoured to the extent of its credit. It is well accepted in Australia that the circumstances attending wrongful dishonouring may also support a defamation action.

There was no express malice on the part of Westpac. Westpac acted as it did by reason of the erroneous operation of its internal procedures.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 5th August 2010 by admin in Legal

Dispute resolution once debt recovery legal proceedings have started

The Financial Ombudsman Service has published an Operational Guideline discussing its prohibition on the pursuit of legal proceedings related to debt recovery instituted prior to the lodging of a dispute with FOS.

In FOS’s opinion, “upon receiving notification of the Dispute, the Financial Services Provider should have a process in place which ensures that no further steps are taken as soon as possible (with time being of the essence)….

As the critical date is the date of lodgement of the Dispute with FOS, any judgment obtained after that date must be set aside by the FSP at no cost to the Applicant. Within 14 days of the referral of the Dispute, the FSP must apply to set aside the judgment.”

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 5th August 2010 by admin in Legal

August 1, 2010

Langes+ updated products

We recently updated our fixed price products for credit unions and other mutuals. If you want more information ask us for a demonstration.

  • Default notices: templates for every state for default notices for secured and unsecured loans and mortgage enforcement;
  • Compliance services: Quick Call Answers, our phone enquiry service, Document templates, Webinars, Compliance assurance reviews, Compliance training;
  • Langes Mortgage Service: national consumer credit mortgage processing;
  • Wills days: wills preparation service for your members.

Contact a Langes+ partner in your state.

We will keep doing the free stuff including Australian Regulatory Compliance Review and National Consumer Credit Reform.

You can follow us on Twitter at langeslaw or on your mobile device at our mobile website.

Get updates via SMS by texting follow langeslaw to 0198089488 in Australia (for Telstra customers)

You can also subscribe to our email alerts and RSS feeds.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 1st August 2010 by admin in Legal