Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
Decided	12 May 1983
Citation(s)	(1983) 151 CLR 447
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Deane & Dawson JJ

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which the legal issue of unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education is examined and the implications as to the imbalance in bargaining power are considered.

The case is a formative case for the defence of unconscionability and is studied under contract law in Australian law schools.^[1]

Facts

The Amadios, whose son carried on business as a builder, guaranteed the son's indebtedness to the Commercial Bank of Australia. To this end, they executed certain documents the effect of which was to provide the bank with a mortgage over a building which they owned. When the son's business failed, the bank sought to enforce the guarantee. In their defence, the Amadios asserted that the guarantee was unenforceable because it was unconscionable. They were held to be at a "special disadvantage" as an equitable doctrine in Equity (law).^[2] With unconscionable conduct having no definition at a legislative level (other than conduct lacking in goodfaith) it is largely up to the presiding judicial member to determine as to whether compliance is efficient on a statutory basis.^[3]

Judgment

It was held by the High Court of Australia in 3-1 majority that, in all the circumstances, it was unconscionable for the bank to rely on the guarantee. Notable circumstances taken into the account by the court include:

1. The Amadios had a limited understanding of English.
2. The Amadios did not have the benefit of independent advice, and such advice was not provided or suggested by the bank.
3. When the mortgage was executed the bank was aware of the Amadios' son's financial situation and knew the Amadios were not so appraised.
4. The bank did not advise the Amadios that there was no limit on their liability under the guarantee - the Amadios believed the liability was limited to $50,000.

Majority opinion

Justice Mason noted: "Relief on the ground of unconscionable conduct will be granted when unconscientious advantage is taken of an innocent party whose will is overborne so that it is not independent and voluntary, just as it will also be granted when such advantage is taken of an innocent party who though not deprived of an independent and voluntary will, is unable to make a worthwhile judgment as to what is in his best interests (at 462)."

In cases of proven unconscionability, the courts will set aside the contract or refuse to make an order for specific performance of it. As will be seen, if the unconscionable conduct constitutes a breach of statutory law, broader remedies (including damages) may be available.

Chief Justice Gibbs stated that "The appellant should in my opinion fail only because of its failure to disclose to the respondents matters which it ought to have disclosed" which is that the guarantee was precarious with the state of the bank account of the son at the time he arranged for his parents to place their property in guarantee, and the very close working relationship between the bank and the son, and that the parents thought that the limit of their liability was only $50,000, not the full value of their investment property (being of the order of $200,000).

The judgment of Deane J, was referred to by other judges. He said, "In the present case ... it was ... evident to the bank that Mr. and Mrs. Amadio stood in need of advice as to the nature and effect of the transaction into which they were entering. It is apparent that any such advice would have included the importance to a guarantor of ascertaining from the bank the state of the customer's account which was being guaranteed and any unusual features of the account. If such information had been obtained by Mr. and Mrs. Amadio, they would not, on the evidence and in the light of the learned trial judge's finding, have entered into the guarantee/mortgage at all. The whole transaction should properly be seen as flowing from the special disability which was evident to the bank and as being unfair, unjust and unreasonable." The customer's account stated here is that of their son who brought the bank guarantee documents to his parents. The bank knew of the poor state of the son's business accounts, and the bank and the son had a history of closely linked business relations with each other.

Dissenting opinion

Dawson J delivered a dissenting judgment in which he said, "it is my view that the appellant bank was not guilty of any non-disclosure amounting to a breach of duty on its part" and that the facts did not point to the Amadios having been disadvantaged and that, therefore, the bank was not guilty of either unconscionable conduct or misrepresentation.^[4]

References