The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has failed in its attempt to prevent a case for enforcement of a loan guarantee being heard by a Supreme Court jury, rather than a single judge. The CBA is seeking to recover the excess debt owing under a personal guarantee after a tavern and its associated business was sold by receivers in November 2012. The defendant, William Ross, disputes the bank's claim, and has counterclaimed against the CBA. At the time the defence and counterclaim were filed, Ross elected for trial by jury. The CBA argued in the Queensland Supreme Court in Brisbane that a jury was not appropriate for three main reasons: the factual issues to be determined were numerous and involved complex commercial and quasi legal inquiries, such as allegations of  unconscionable conduct, which could not be conveniently considered and resolved by a jury. the duration of the trial was likely to be lengthened, and at substantial expense, if the issues were to be determined by a jury, with CBA estimating the trial would take six days, whereas Ross said three days would be required. there was no substantial public interest in the nature of the allegations made in these proceedings.Justice Ann Lyons of the QSC disagreed, and pointed out that many of the facts had already been agreed on; most questions of law and admissibility of documents are decisions for the trial judge, who then directs the jury; the real factual issues were not as numerous as counsel for the CBA argued. Mostly the jury would be required to decide what version of events they preferred in relation to circumstances of meetings, conversations at the meetings and conduct which occurred subsequent to the meetings between the parties. "Many of the factual issues are issues which juries are well placed to determine," the judge said. Justice Lyons also questioned whether the trial with a jury would last six days, and suggested that even if it did, that would still accurately be classified as a short trial. The other argument against a jury - that there were issues of market value to consider, "which could be a difficult exercise for a jury", particularly as no expert evidence was being called, was also shut down quickly by Justice Lyons,"The question of market value is something well able to be determined by the jury based on the evidence presented to it. Indeed, the concept of market value is well understood by members of the public and is a concept within the range of normal experience," she said.There have been several cases where Bankwest loans have gone sour after the financial crisis, all have been heard by a single judge, and most have not ended well for former bank customers - who have usually been self-represented and clearly struggling. This case, in contrast, is lining up as being very much more engaging.