Westpac loses defamatory case
(4 August 2010−Australia) Paul Aktas, a former real estate agent, has won A$50,000 in damages from Westpac Banking Corporation after the bank mistakenly dishonoured his company’s cheques.
At the end of 2007 the bank dishonoured 30 cheques drawn by Mr Aktas’s company, Homewise real estate agency.
As a result the cheques were stamped "refer to drawer" and were then returned to Mr Atkas’ clients, mostly landlords, inferring that Mr Aktas did not have sufficient funds to meet the payments.
In the longstanding battle with Westpac Mr Atkas claimed that he had received an adverse and hostile reaction, particularly from the local Turkish community as a result of the mistakenly bounced cheques.
The NSW Supreme Court ruled that there was no public interest protecting the bank's communications to the payees, as payees have no interest in receiving notice of a refusal to pay a cheque where the drawer has sufficient funds to meet the payment.
For the payee, there is no need for any communication from the bank about the fate of the cheque, if it is met on presentation, the court said in a statement issued in conjunction with the judgment.
Further, to hold that giving a notice of dishonour is an occasion of qualified privilege is not conducive to maintaining accuracy in the decisions banks must make about paying cheques, the statement also read.
As a result the cheques were stamped "refer to drawer" and were then returned to Mr Atkas’ clients, mostly landlords, inferring that Mr Aktas did not have sufficient funds to meet the payments.
In the longstanding battle with Westpac Mr Atkas claimed that he had received an adverse and hostile reaction, particularly from the local Turkish community as a result of the mistakenly bounced cheques.
The NSW Supreme Court ruled that there was no public interest protecting the bank's communications to the payees, as payees have no interest in receiving notice of a refusal to pay a cheque where the drawer has sufficient funds to meet the payment.
For the payee, there is no need for any communication from the bank about the fate of the cheque, if it is met on presentation, the court said in a statement issued in conjunction with the judgment.
Further, to hold that giving a notice of dishonour is an occasion of qualified privilege is not conducive to maintaining accuracy in the decisions banks must make about paying cheques, the statement also read.
Subscribe