The High Court has refused an aggrieved former CBA wealth management client special leave to appeal against a decision by the Full Federal Court dismissing his claim for compensation. The case had its genesis when a CBA officer apparently failed to act on the client's directions to redeem his units from a unit trust - a mistake the clinet claimed had eventually cost him his entire savings. A recently published transcript of proceedings from the application, heard before Justices Susan Kiefel and Stephen Gageler in Sydney on 11 December 2015, showed that former CBA customer Simon Anish Chand argued that the bank's actions had worked a significant injustice upon him. He disputed the Court of Appeal's characterisation of the first component of the damages he sought -about $1,030,000 - as, in effect, compensatory or what the court called prospective loss; and claimed margin calls and associated expenses of about $500,000 should have been repaid. Further, if the money had been banked from the redemption of units, all would have been well, he said."He would have nil debt. His margin loan account would have been discharged. No further interest payments. No risk of incurring margin calls. No risk of market corrections. No risk of loss of capital, nil ongoing investor advice fees," Chand's lawyer argued.As one of the judges in the earlier Full Federal Court hearing expressed the situation - and the High Court agreed - Chand was "the author of his own misfortune".This was because, although the bank may have not reacted to their client's faxed request to redeem the units, Chand, on realising his request had not been actioned, made a conscious decision to stay in the market, and saw the value of his holdings go up considerably over subsequent weeks. He made no further attempt to cash out and pay off his margin loan. But when the financial crisis hit Chand lost the lot, with his holding reduced from over $1 million to just $33,000."We submit the applicant should never have been in the position he was in," Chand's lawyers argued. "If as it has been found he acted unreasonably, he should never have been pitched into a position where that could happen.""We consider this case has insufficient prospects of success and is not a suitable vehicle to resolve the question sought to be agitated," said Justice Keifel. Special leave was refused with costs.