The Commercial Bank Of Australia Ltd V Amadio (1983)

1241 Words3 Pages

The parties to the case are the respondents, Mr and Mrs Amadio and the appellants, The Commercial Bank of Australia. The respondents were two Italian migrants of advanced age, both with limited knowledge of the English language2 and limited formal education.3 Their son’s, Vincenzo Amadio’s company, V. Amadio Builders Pty. Ltd was known to the bank and to the bank manager, Mr Virgo.4 As of October 1976, the company exceeded its overdraft limit of $80,000 and from this time onwards, the company continued to be unable to repay the amount owed.

On 18 March 1977, the bank closed the account due to the overdraft. However, on 24 March 1977, the account was reopened by the bank and the credit limit temporarily increased to $270,000. The bank would …show more content…

(1983) HCA 151 CLR 447
2.The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) HCA 151 CLR 447, 451
3. Ibid 450.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid 471.
6. Ibid 449.
7. Ibid 472.
8. Ibid 454.
9. Ibid 449.
10. Amadio v Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd (1981) SASC 5303
11. The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1981) 95 LSJS, 419
12. The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) HCA 151 CLR, 447

Ground of Appeal
The grounds of appeal the appellants identified is that the principles applied in the Supreme Court of South Australia (Full Court), from the case Blomely v. Ryan did not apply to the case in dispute.13

The appellants further specified that these principles did not apply as “no situation existed that the bank” would not “naturally expect”. In addition, the bank was also unaware of any misrepresentation or impropriety the respondents had suffered and therefore the bank viewed the guarantee as legally valid. 14

Analysis of Decision

Justice Gibbs C., identifies in his verdict that the appeal should be dismissed as the bank failed to release information it was required to disclose, due to there being factors that were …show more content…

Moreover, Gibbs C.J states that in order for an agreement to be “unconscientious”, one party must take advantage over any “disabilities” present in the other party. However, he felt that the respondents did not suffer any “disabilities” during the transaction that the bank could have used unfairly.29

The dissenting decision provided by Justice Dawson J. also constitutes as obiter. For example, according to Dawson J., if the respondents had asked questions specifically to the bank, the bank would have been, by law, required to answer those questions. The Amadio’s did not ask any direct inquiries and the bank had no obligation to ‘volunteer’ information to their client.30

24. The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) HCA 151 CLR 447, 455
25. Ibid 448.
26. Ibid 488.
27. Ibid

More about The Commercial Bank Of Australia Ltd V Amadio (1983)

Open Document