NAB v Priestley (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 508

This was the second attempt of the borrowers to seek leave to file an amended defence.

The redrafted defence attempted to allege that the loan and mortgage comprised additional oral and implied terms that the bank would assist them with the servicing of the loan. The particulars did not go beyond statements made by a bank employee that the bank could assist with budgeting and planning. There was no suggestion that assistance with the servicing of the loan was even discussed. What was relied on provided no basis for the implication of the alleged term.

Another claim that the bank would act as an equity partner was supported by particulars where the effect of the words spoken could not conceivably prove a basis for a finding that an agreement was reached that the bank would act as an equity partner, owing them fiduciary obligations.

The court found the proposed amended defence embarrassing and refused leave to amend.

Click here to read the full judgment

“There was an earlier decision in this case, click here to read our report”.

Scroll to Top