• Contact
  • Feedback
Banking Day
Stay Ahead. Stay Informed.
Concise. Candid. Provocative.
Get the daily banking news that matters
Banking Day – Your trusted source for independent financial insights.
Subscribe Now
  • News
  • Topics
    • All Topics
    • Briefs
    • Major Banks
    • Authorised deposit-taking institutions
    • Insurance, funds and super
    • Payments, mobile & wallets
    • Consumer lending
    • Mortgages
    • Business lending
    • Finance regulation
    • Debt capital markets
    • Ratings agencies
    • Equity capital markets
    • Professional services
    • Work & career
    • Foreign news
    • Other topics
  • Free Trial
  • Subscribe
  • Resources
    • Industry events
  • About us
    • About Banking Day
    • Advertise
    • Feedback
    • Contact Banking Day
  • Search
  • Login
  • My account
    • Account settings
    • User Admin
    • Logout

Login or request a free trial

Great Southern refusnik finds no joy from court

14 April 2016 3:44PM
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank have prevailed in another court case where a borrower investor in Great Southern wood lots refused to pay.The District Court of South Australia late last week ruled in a favour of the bank.On 29 June 2004 Mr Ling took a loan of A$201,000 from Great Southern Finance, with the loan financed by the then Adelaide Bank. Ling applied the funds from the loans to purchase wood lots in a managed investment scheme promoted by Great Southern, following the advice of his accountant.By late 2009, Ling refused to make payments under the loan, given the poor financial state of the wood lots.In a case that echoes matters canvassed in a class action before the Supreme Court of Victoria - resolved in Bendigo's favour - the SA court reached similar conclusions."The conduct of Great Southern was not misleading conduct," Justice Paul Slattery held."The bank is not burdened with any deleterious effect of any of the conduct of Great Southern and in any event the bank was an innocent bystander and did not conduct itself in any way that constituted a breach of the Trade Practices Act."The interest rates charged under the loan contract are not a penalty."There has been no unconscionable conduct [under the] ASIC Act."

I'm a returning subscriber

*
Password reset *
Login

Request a free trial

  • Emailing you the news at 7am.
  • Covering core lending and funding issues, strategy, payments, regulation, risk management, IT, marketing and more.
  • Original news and summaries of major stories from other media – ditch your newspaper subscriptions.
  • Focused on banking and finance, saving you the time spent wading through newspapers and other services.
  • With reporting from former editors and senior writers from the AFR and The Australian.
  • Configured for your phone, laptop and PC.
Free trial Banking Day
Stay Ahead. Stay Informed.
Concise. Candid. Provocative.
Get the daily banking news that matters
Banking Day – Your trusted source for independent financial insights.
Subscribe Now

Consumer lending

  • Latitude, Harvey Norman liable for interest free GO card con

Copyright © WorkDay Media 2003-2025.

Banking Day is a WorkDay Media publication

WorkDay Media Unit Trust

  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of access and use