Plaintiff v Defendant

1. Mr Williams, in his own words, was 'deceived through interactions with romance dating agencies associated with a website anadtasiadate.com' which operates 'in a manner that misleads individuals'.[1] In early September 2023 he discovered he had been the victim of a 'complex deception' which took over $25,000 and more than six years of his life. He described the discovery of the deception as traumatic. He contacted his bank on 5 September 2023 concerning the ANZ Visa debit card that he had used to make payments. He then commenced a claim against ANZ (the bank). The defendant has applied for summary judgment or alternatively for the statement of claim to be struck out as disclosing no cause of action.

1. Mr Williams had an ANZ Pensioner Advantage Account. The bank has exhibited to the affidavit filed by the bank in support of its application, the ANZ Terms and Conditions (Terms) applicable to this account. The account had a linked Visa debit card and the terms and conditions address the use of the Visa debit card.[2] The Visa Core Rules and Visa Product and Service Rules (Visa Rules) also govern Mr Williams' use of the debit card. In particular, Visa Rule 11 headed 'Dispute Resolution' is also exhibited. It is apparent from Visa Rule 11 that an issuer, a cardholder, a member and a merchant are separately identified in the Visa Rules.
2. The chronology of events that underpin the claim began in 2018 from which time transactions were made regularly using the ANZ Visa debit card until 2023. Mr Williams believed he was paying for services from corresponding with, and sending gifts to, women he thought to be genuine but who were misrepresenting themselves and their intentions.
3. He discovered the deception on 31 August 2023 upon receipt of an email. Shortly after he spoke with a person on the telephone who provided similar information.
4. He contacted the bank, initially on 5 September 2023, and informed it that the transactions paid from his account were fraudulent/a scam. A dispute was raised by the bank under the Visa Rules. By the Visa Rules, a dispute was limited to certain types of transactions including 'unauthorised transactions' as defined, and to transactions made in the previous 120 days. On the basis that Mr Williams told the bank that he had made payments that he had recently learned were a fraud, the bank raised a dispute that the transactions were unauthorised. On 15 September 2023 the bank advised Mr Williams the transactions had been authorised by him, even though he later found out he was paying the money to something that was a scam. Therefore the transactions were considered authorised.
5. Mr Williams has also reported the matter to various agencies including Scam Watch, Legal Aid, other lawyers, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.[3]
6. Mr Williams prepared his own statement of claim filed 15 October 2024 and filed an amended statement of claim on 21 February 2025. The bank filed a defence on 2 April 2025 responding to this later document. An application was foreshadowed for summary judgment or to strike out the amended statement of claim as it disclosed no cause of action. A summons seeking this relief was filed on 25 July 2025 with the affidavit in support of Jessica Cullin sworn that same date.
7. Mr Williams responded by affidavit affirmed 14 August 2025 contending the matter should proceed to trial and exhibiting a proposed further amended statement of claim (FASOC) in substitution.
8. The bank filed an outline of written submissions noting that the proposed FASOC appeared to be a concession that the filed document required amendment.[4] The application therefore proceeded on the basis of the FASOC.
9. The bank had written to Mr Williams setting out its view about the deficiencies in the pleading, including on 6 February 2025 and on 24 June 2025 at which time the bank's solicitor said:

There is no legally recognisable 'cause of action' in your Pleadings. This means you have not set out any legal basis for you to sue ANZ. Even if all the facts that you have alleged are true (which ANZ does not accept), they do not amount to any legal wrongdoing by ANZ. [5]

1. The bank set out a number of reasons for this statement. In an adversarial context Mr Williams took issue with many of the matters raised, although without grappling with this central problem of identifying a legally recognised cause of action. Dealing with the FASOC the bank submits that, while excising some irrelevant material the pleading still fails to comply with the Rules or to disclose a cause of action.

1. The defendant has applied for summary judgment under s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Civil Procedure Act) and/or Rule 22 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Rules). The legal test to be applied in an application for summary judgment under both is that the claim made has 'no real prospect of success'.[6] It is necessarily a high bar as it disposes of a matter without hearing evidence and determining a dispute on its merit. It is to be exercised with caution only when it is clear there is no real question to be tried. It is for the bank to persuade the Court that Mr Williams' claim has no real prospect of success. For completeness, s 64 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a matter to go to trial, despite there being no real prospect of success, if the Court is satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice for it to be disposed of summarily, or that the dispute is of such a nature that only a full hearing on the merits is appropriate.
2. In the alternative, the defendant applies to have the whole of the FASOC struck out under r 23.02 of the Rules. This rule provides four bases for striking out some or all of a pleading. The bank relies on only one basis: that the pleading does not disclose a cause of action.[7] Under r 23.02, the bank argues that the statement of claim does not disclose a cause of action. It also submits that any legal claim should be in proper form, if intended to be relied on. The bank submits that if the filed statement of claim is struck out it should be without leave to replead, or alternatively, judgment be granted under r 23.01.[8]

1. At the hearing of the bank's application on 24 October, the bank addressed what it understood to be Mr Williams' claims. It understood that all matters rested upon ANZ action or inaction after Mr Williams contacted the bank on 5 September 2023.[9] Mr Williams claimed that the bank failed to initiate a full dispute inquiry (or proper investigation) against anastasiadate.com, it lacked due diligence, and made certain wrong assumptions. The bank submitted that the FASOC did not identify any of the following matters: what obligations had been breached - whether they be obligations imposed by contract or otherwise imposed by law. the source of any obligation to investigate or initiate a dispute inquiry. or to conduct due diligence into the merchant with whom Mr Williams was transacting. The bank says it was contractually obliged to initiate a dispute inquiry upon notification by Mr Williams. It was also to co-operate with any inquiry conducted by Visa under the Visa Rules. It submits that it did both of those things. Essentially, it argues that any claim of fraud or deceptive conduct lies against the merchant - anastasiadate.com. The bank submits that it took no part in the transactions: they were made by Mr Williams.
2. The bank submits that the law does not recognise a fiduciary relationship between a bank and account holders in the circumstances of Mr Williams. Mr Williams was a customer depositing his funds with the bank and no advisory role was provided by the bank as to the expenditure by the customer of those funds. There are no particular features of the relationship between the bank and Mr Williams identified that could, in law, give rise to fiduciary obligations on the part of the bank.
3. While the bank concedes that the relationship between bank and customer may give rise to a common law duty of care, breach of which may amount to negligence,[10] Mr Williams' pleading does not set out the elements of that duty or the steps required to meet that duty. There is no pleading of the content and nature of the duty. The bank submits that any such duty is informed by the contractual relationship between the parties and so would largely align with the Terms. Equally there is no pleading that identifies the acts or omissions that are relied on, or that makes out the breach of this duty in a form that allows the bank and the Court to understand what conduct amounts to the breach alleged. For example, what steps were required of the bank after the dispute was raised in order to conduct a proper investigation and how the failure to take those steps resulted in the loss and damage claimed.
4. In substance, the bank addressed the obligations imposed on it under contract by the Visa Rules and said that the entirety of the claim should be dismissed or struck out. The bank submitted that its contractual obligation was to initiate a dispute when contacted, and when certain conditions were met, and that it has complied with these obligations.
5. As a subsidiary point the bank contended that any valid claim, whether in contract or in negligence, was not pleaded in proper form. Namely, Mr Williams had failed to identify the relevant Visa Rules relied on, as well as the particular acts or omissions said to be the conduct by the bank that breached the Visa Rules or amounted to a breach of the duty of care. The bank submitted that there was little factual dispute concerning the transactions themselves, and the details of contact between Mr Williams and the bank. What is in dispute is how those transactions are characterised. The material facts - as to Mr Williams' illness, as to the actual steps or omissions of the bank once it was notified, or the basis upon which the bank is said to be legally responsible for money spent by Mr Williams when he believed the goods and services to be genuine - are not set out in the FASOC.

1. Mr Williams makes three allegations. First, that ANZ should have raised a chargeback request for all transactions with anastasiadate.com. Second, that the bank owed him fiduciary obligations which it has breached. Third, that the bank owed him a duty of care which it has breached.
2. On the first matter, he alleged that ANZ should have raised a chargeback request under the Visa Rules for all transactions going back to 2018. He submitted this is on the basis that they were unauthorised due to his mental illness, or alternatively, that the Visa Rules provide for an extension to the 120 day time limit that should have been granted, permitting all transactions to be investigated. He submitted that he requested a dispute inquiry concerning all transactions involving a single merchant.[11] That merchant is, according to the Visa Rules, a visa client and so linked to the bank through Visa.[12] Mr Williams contended that the bank did take part in the transactions because it provided him with the Visa debit card that he used to make the payments. He alleges that a thorough investigation by the bank would have revealed that Mr Williams did not possess the merchandise promised in the 254 transactions. An investigation should have revealed that his participation, while appearing to be authorised, was not so, because of illness affecting his capacity to engage in the transactions.
3. Second, Mr Williams alleges a fiduciary relationship between the bank and himself as customer. He submitted that the bank was a 'fiduciary' and that the bank had to manage his money for his benefit not their benefit. He submitted that he trusted the bank and believed they had a duty of loyalty to him so the benefit in any dispute should be his and not credited to other parties, such as the merchant against whom he raises the dispute.
4. It appears Mr Williams alleges a duty to investigate merchants on behalf of customers. When such a duty arises is unclear on the FASOC, as are the steps that the bank should have taken to investigate. The pleading does not set out the necessary matters: the content of any duty of care, what is required to meet that duty, and what specific acts or omissions are relied on to demonstrate breach.
5. Third, Mr Willams also alleges the bank was negligent in failing to raise a dispute or conduct an adequate investigation into the website anastasiadate.com.
6. At some point Mr Williams did wish to advance a claim for breach of contract, at other times he did not wish to rely on a breach of his contract with the bank.[13] Mr Williams filed a detailed written response to the bank's submissions on 18 September 2025.

1. Mr Williams' submissions focus on a cause of action in negligence and a breach of a fiduciary obligation. His FASOC describes the basis of his claim as one of 'Joint Tortfeasors' Gross Fiduciary Negligence' or 'Major Fiduciary Negligence'.[14] Mr Williams told the Court that he did have some assistance in drafting his pleading from Artificial Intelligence.[15] Notwithstanding this assistance, the FASOC does not articulate a proper basis for the facts that Mr Williams wishes to prove to establish a liability in the bank to pay damages for the losses he claims. Rather the impression given by the narrative is that the bank is independently liable for the fraud or deception of a third party upon him as its customer.
2. Many of the claims Mr Williams wishes to agitate in a trial are explained in submissions, however, they have not found their way into any version of a statement of claim. Therefore, much of these reasons deals with explanations found in the submissions but which are not spelt out in the pleading. I have taken into account the explanations in the submissions in ascertaining whether by a further more directed pleading a cause of action might be capable of disclosure and put into proper form.
3. First, although at various times Mr Williams has appeared to advance a claim based upon breach of the contractual relationship between himself and the bank, his final written submissions and oral argument on 21 November 2025 made clear that he did not wish to press a contractual cause of action. Therefore I say nothing further about any contractual claim.
4. Second, Mr Williams wished to advance a claim that the bank owed him obligations as a fiduciary which it has breached. While the categories of a fiduciary relationship are not closed, they are generally relationships, and the obligations arising from those relationships, where a person has undertaken to act in the interests of another and not in his or her own interests.[16] Generally, a fiduciary relationship is one in which particular obligations are imposed upon persons in certain relationships of trust. Commercial relationships for profit including banking are not generally considered to have this necessary quality. While Mr Williams says he trusted the bank to look after his money, that does not, in law, make the relationship a fiduciary one.
5. The relationship between a bank and a person who deposits funds with the bank is traditionally recognised in law as a relationship of a bank debtor and customer creditor. That is, as a matter of contract, the bank is obliged to repay funds deposited with it and held by it. No relationship of trust in the legal sense, or fiduciary relationship, arises. In certain circumstances, the position may be different. The particular service provided by a bank may impose a fiduciary obligation, for example, where an agreement is reached to hold the money for a particular purpose on behalf of a client, such as a security deposit, and use it only for that purpose or to return it. Another example is where there is reliance on advice, such as investment advice. [17] In each case the precise factual basis of the dealing between bank and customer must be outlined. Mr Williams' pleading proceeds upon a general proposition that, as a customer of the bank, he was owed obligations of a fiduciary nature. The pleading does not disclose a basis for a fiduciary relationship.
6. Mr Williams makes no claim in his pleading, beyond the provision of a Visa debit card, that identifies any basis upon which the bank advises or facilitates transactions initiated by him. He does not identify why it is that the bank's obligations are to guard against his own actions in spending his deposited funds. Nor does the pleading identify the bank as benefiting from the funds paid to the merchant, or that, prior to Mr Williams notifying the bank of the deception, the bank advised or promoted such transactions. The pleading does not disclose a basis for a fiduciary relationship, breach of which might sound in damages.
7. Third, Mr Williams alleges that the bank owed him a duty of care. At best, the FASOC identifies the nature of that duty as a duty to conduct a full investigation of the merchant when notified by the customer of a dispute.[18] Mr Williams alleges that this duty was breached by a failure to initiate such an inquiry, and by 'actions and non-actions of ANZ bank employees'. The pleading does not identify any specific actions or non-actions, but refers to 'banking practices' and 'deficiencies'. Reference is made to other documents that provide specific instances but the pleading itself does not identify any specifics.
8. Mr Williams appears to want to establish that the bank owed him a duty to take care not to expose his funds to a risk of loss. Both his oral evidence and his FASOC were unclear as to whether that duty required the bank to take steps before he used his own funds to make purchases. If it did, Mr Williams' statement does not say what steps that duty required the bank to take prior to notification of the alleged merchant fraud.
9. In oral submissions Mr Williams seemed to want to advance a case that a duty of care was owed from the time he told the bank he 'was mentally ill'. It is at this point that he alleges that they 'should have made an investigation'.[19] He said he told the bank he was unwell in September 2023 when he first raised a dispute about the transactions with the bank. All of the transactions in question predate the notification to the bank of ill health. If in fact the duty of care that Mr Williams wishes to agitate arises after the loss has already been suffered, it is not possible to see how any breach of that duty would be a cause of the loss of funds. The pleading does not set out the nature of the mental illness nor the information that was communicated about that illness and the effect on his capacity to enter in to the relevant banking transactions from 2018.
10. In the context of a claim in negligence, Mr Williams refers to joint tortfeasors. It is unclear what is being conveyed but I assume it is a reference to the bank's joint liability with anastasiadate.com to Mr Williams for his losses. If so, the pleading makes no attempt to identify the bank's role in any fraud or scam that was conducted by the merchant. Provision of a debit card to use for transactions, without more, would have no real prospect of success in establishing a tortious liability of the bank for the transactions.
11. The bank accepts that it owes a duty of care to its customers to take action once notified of an 'unauthorised transaction'. The bank accepts that such a duty of care might exist but would be informed by the contractual limits of the banking relationship and encompass an obligation to perform those contractual obligations with due care and skill.[20] It says those contractual obligations, which inform any common law duty of care, are set out in the Terms relating to the Visa debit card provided to Mr Williams. That duty is not clearly articulated in Mr Williams' pleading, as it is not differentiated from the matters identified comprising a fiduciary relationship. The dispute in reality appears to lie in whether the transactions were 'authorised' transactions. Given that Mr Williams initiated the transactions, and did so willingly until such time as the deception of Anastasiadate.com was revealed to him, his documents and his oral argument have not articulated why the transactions were unauthorised at the time they occurred. Two matters flow from those Terms where the bank may be liable for 'unauthorised transactions' as defined which would bear on the scope of any common law duty to guard against unauthorised transactions.
12. First, unauthorised transactions are defined to exclude those conducted by the cardholder or performed with the cardholder's knowledge and consent. The bank alleges that all the transactions that occurred prior to 5 September 2023 and were conducted by Mr Williams or with his knowledge and consent, so are not unauthorised. This cannot give rise to liability on the part of the bank.
13. Second, where the Visa Debit card is used to purchase goods and services, the cardholder may be entitled to reverse (or chargeback) the transaction where the cardholder has a dispute with the merchant. There is a time limit for raising a chargeback of 120 days under the Terms. An extension may be sought of that time limit under the Rules. Where a chargeback is requested the bank's liability is governed by the rules concerning dispute resolution.
14. Mr Williams suggests that where the Terms provide that 'unless required by law we do not accept any liability',[21] that unless ordered to meet liability by a judge after a trial, the bank will not accept liability. I reject this submission. The Terms provide for liability recognised at law, and therefore required by law, will be accepted. A legal basis for liability to chargeback or otherwise compensate must be shown. It is for the plaintiff to set that out by their pleading, and then, if disputed as to fact or law or both, is to be determined at trial. This is not a reason to proceed to trial as Mr Williams submits should happen, despite the deficiencies in the document prepared by him.
15. What is clear from Mr Williams' document is that he made payments for goods or services received by him between 2018 and 2023 at which time he discovered that what he had been paying for was not 'genuine'. He does not allege that the bank should have taken any particular step either under contract or in discharging its duty of care to him before 5 September 2023. He instead argues that the bank was obliged to conduct a forensic investigation into the merchant in question once he notified the bank of his discovery of a fraud. If Mr Williams is correct that a full investigation would have uncovered a fraud on the part of the merchant. It is not said why, as a matter of law, the funds lost by Mr Williams prior to discovery of the fraud should be recovered from the bank. To put it another way, the pleading does not say why a failure to conduct a proper investigation after notification of a dispute concerning the transactions was a cause of the loss of Mr Williams' funds deposited with the bank, or the consequential loss associated with distress concerning the fraud by the merchant. It appears that Mr Williams wants to hold the bank legally responsible for the conduct alleged to be misleading and/or deceptive of a third party.
16. Mr Williams' FASOC pleading is also clearly not in proper form. I make allowances for the difficulty in preparing such a document as a self-represented litigant, and acknowledge Mr Williams' genuine attempts to understand and comply with what is asked of him. He is a courteous and co-operative litigant. However, his efforts to produce a satisfactory document have not borne fruit thus far. Following the hearing on 24 October 2025 I granted a short adjournment for the purpose of allowing Mr Williams to address the deficiencies raised with him at the hearing and, if possible, for him to obtain some legal advice. Although Mr Williams had prepared a number of versions of his statement of claim, this was the first occasion his pleading had come before the Court.
17. When the matter returned on 21 November 2025, Mr Williams had prepared a further statement of claim exhibited to an affidavit affirmed by him on 10 November 2025. In that document, described as 'Statement of Claim Proper', Mr Williams says, in over 57 paragraphs, that:

(a) It is a case of tort law not contract law;

(b) It is a case in connection with concerns related to 254 fraudulent transactions with anastasiadate.com;

(c) The case against ANZ is that they failed to initiate a dispute against the scam and by refusing to raise a dispute against the scam they became 'Joint Tortfeasors' (I interpolate that this is jointly with anastasiadate.com, although this is not entirely clear);

(d) The bank's duty to conduct an investigation arises under Visa Rule 1.10.3 which provides that 'a member must assist other members in investigation of fraudulent activity'. In assisting an investigation the bank ought to have interviewed various identified people including merchants, cardholders witnesses and law enforcement. The bank did not conduct a reasonable investigation;

(e) The investigation should have extended beyond the 120 day time limit;

(f) The bank also breached its fiduciary duty and did not provide adequate redress leading to significant loss and damage. The Civil Liability Act 2022 (but intended to be 2002 which is NSW legislation) is relied on to allege that the bank's employees failed to take precautions against a risk of harm to Mr Williams. Had the employees undertaken a proper investigation of Mr Williams' complaint they would have learned that he was very unwell, as he told them in February 2024;

(g) The bank owed a fiduciary duty to act in Mr Williams' best interest as a client. Instead, the bank's action benefited the interest of a 'scam merchant'. It did not protect its customer account security and overlooked practices of the merchant account; and

(h) The scam was an elaborate and complex deception.

1. The document then contains a further two parts: a section headed 'Reaction and Impacted levels' that essentially deals with loss and damage including financial, personal injury to himself and his mother consequent upon discovering the scam, and devastation to other individuals, including Ukrainians. The third section is headed 'Expert Opinion'. It deals with a 'super fiduciary duties' relationship between bank and customer, a term used by someone identified as Mr Owen. Mr Williams describes Mr Owen as an active investor and senior executive who advises investors and advisory groups. The document then sets out Mr Williams' claim for himself, his mother and for 'crimes against humanity'. Finally three submissions are annexed.

1. Mr Williams describes his claim as novel and unprecedented. This increases the need for clarity as to the legal basis for the remedies sought, be they for breach of contract, breach of a common law duty of care, or breach of fiduciary obligations, or otherwise. Mr Williams' most recent 'Statement of Claim Proper'[22] unfortunately still suffers from many of the deficiencies highlighted in the earlier hearing.
2. Mr Williams has attempted to comply with the principle that a statement of claim should contain a narrative. But it is a narrative that is not based within a legal framework in a way that complies with the purpose of pleading - to identify the material facts that a party intends to prove and, importantly, the legal case that proof of those facts would establish. Much of the document comprises conclusionary statements. Many of his submissions are directed at explaining what he intended by his pleading. None of the versions of the statement of claim substantively comply with the Rules.
3. Therefore I have concluded that Mr Williams' document does not disclose a cause of action against the bank for breach of fiduciary obligations. Further, a cause of action in negligence is not adequately set out as neither the elements of the duty owed nor the factual basis for the breach alleged are clearly and concisely stated. As a result, my understanding of the negligence claim that Mr Williams wishes to make is one that has no real prospect of success. Further, the relief sought goes far beyond the remedies available to Mr Williams for loss and damage caused by any breach of a common law duty of care. Specifically, claims by Mr Williams for relief on behalf of other specified people, or humanity generally, have no real prospect of success. It is appropriate to strike out the entire statement of claim. I have no confidence that a further opportunity to plead an arguable cause of action in negligence would address the deficiencies and so I will not give leave to replead.
4. Before publishing these reasons I received an email containing further submissions from Mr Williams addressing matters not raised in the oral hearings. Specifically, he raised issues of alleged noncompliance by the bank with the overarching obligations of the Civil Procedure Act. His email to the Court was copied to the defendant.
5. The High Court has said that submissions received after a decision is reserved, that are provided without leave, or go beyond matters for which leave is granted, are misconceived. Mason J said:

After argument had concluded in this Court lengthy written submissions dealing with issues not hitherto raised and a further affidavit were filed. .... The material was submitted without leave having been given by the Court. The impression, unfortunately abroad, that parties may file supplementary written material after the conclusion of oral argument, without leave having been given beforehand, is quite misconceived. We have to say once again, firmly and clearly, that the hearing is the time and place to present argument, whether it be wholly oral or oral argument supplemented by written submissions.[23]

Although I have read Mr Williams' submissions dated 13 January 2026, I do not propose to act upon them. As I have granted the relief sought by the bank, it could not be said that the bank acted inconsistently with its overarching obligations. Further, it is inappropriate to conduct a further inquiry into any new matter raised by Mr Williams at this late stage after hearing of the defendant's summons on matters not before me at either of the two hearings. I do not propose to make any such enquiries.

[1] Plaintiff, 'Further Amended Statement of Claim' ('FASOC') [8] as attached to affidavit of Michael Williams affirmed 14 August 2025.

[3] Plaintiff, 'Amended Statement of Claim' filed 21 February 2025 [23].

[4] Defendant, 'Outline of Defendant's Submissions Summary Judgement Application' ('Bank Submissions') filed 5 September 2025 [61].

[5] Letter dated 24 June 2025 at paragraph 3(a), attached to affidavit of Jessica Rae Cullen sworn 25 July 2025 at page 689.

[6] Lysaght Building Solutions Pty Ltd (t/as Highline Commercial Construction) v Blanalko Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 158; (2013) 42 VR 27. Contrary to Mr Williams submission, the test in Lysaght is no longer one that a case is 'hopeless' 'bound to fail' or 'fanciful'. The test is whether the respondent (in this case Mr Williams) has a claim with a 'real' prospect of success.

[8] See Transcript of proceedings, Michael Williams v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2024 06804, Forbes J, 21 November 2025) ('November Transcript') 20.

[11] Plaintiff, 'The Plaintiff's Submissions for Summary Judgement Application' filed 18 September 2024, [4], 12.

[13] See Transcript of proceedings, Michael Williams v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Supreme Court of Victoria, S ECI 2024 06804, Forbes J, 24 October 2025) ('October Transcript') at 31.16-24 and 33.14-17, but also 34.9-11.

[16] Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 42 [29].

[17] See for example Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Smith FCFCA (1991) 42 ALR 453 (Davies, Sheppard and Gummow JJ)

[22] At page 4 of the affidavit of Michael Williams affirmed 10 November 2025.

[23] Carr v Finance Corporation (No 1) [1981] HCA 20; (1981) 147 CLR 246, Mason J at [29]. Also see Miller & Associated Ins Brokers v BMW Australia Finance Ltd [2010] HCA 31; (2010) 241 CLR 357 at [111].