Zippoz v NAB [2011] NSWCA 164

The borrowers defended the bank’s claim on the basis of an oral agreement, upon which the borrowers acted to their detriment by buying another property at Dapto. No particulars to support this Estoppel argument were provided and the defence was struck out. The borrower appealed, and at the same time, filed evidence giving details of the oral agreement. The appeal was refused with the comment:

The evidence failed to demonstrate with any degree of clarity, that there had been some form of detrimental reliance upon an undertaking not to require any payments under the loan facilities. Thus, the vague and uncertain proposals made by her at the time the applicants ceased making payments, pre-dated by almost a year the purchase of land at Dapto.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top