Westpac Banking Corporation v Munk [2012] NSWSC 1576

The borrowers argued that the bank employee’s representations that the facility would be automatically rolled over upon expiry amounted to promissory estoppel, which precluded enforcement until expiry of the rollover.

The bank argued that even if an arguable defence were established, the loan required the borrowers to repay all amounts owed without set off, counterclaim or deduction. However the court found than a defence of promissory estoppel was not a set-off, counter claim or deduction because it goes to the primary debt and would prevent the bank from enforcing on the loan or treating as it being in default until expiry of the rollover.

Accordingly the court found there was an arguable defense.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top