Ian Williams: Bendigo pensioner’s $380m lawsuit against NAB thrown out of court
An Australian pensioner’s massive legal battle with her bank has failed, but the organization will refund her for fraudulent transactions.
Last November, Ian Williams filed a $380 million claim against uBank, a subsidiary of the National Australia Bank (NAB), for what he described as a “degrading, hurtful and stressful” response to a complaint.
Mr Williams sought, among other things, an eye-watering sum of damages against NAB to “deter and punish the egregious behavior and set an example” by the bank.
The saga began three years ago on November 2, 2022, when the pensioner noticed in his bank records two transactions dated three days earlier at Coles Supermarket in Bundoora, 180km from his home in Bendigo.
Mr. Williams notified his bank, which, after an internal investigation, found that his debit card had been added to a Google Pay wallet and that he had spent $1,338.55.
uBank did not accept any liability for unauthorized transactions but offered to refund the total amount in December of the same year.
In May 2023 the bank increased its offer to $1500, but Mr Williams rejected both and instead took legal action against uBank and NAB.
In his statement of claim, Mr Williams claimed the bank tried to frame him for the transactions and took advantage of his vulnerability as a 70-year-old man.
He said he wanted the case to “deter systemic abuses” and for banks to “be proactive in addressing this ever-growing problem.”
Mr Williams scored an early victory when the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled in his favor in a summary judgment after the bank failed to appear in court.
However, this decision was overturned at the beginning of this year and the bank applied to have the case dismissed in September.
In the judgment handed down by Associate Justice Caroline Goulden last Wednesday, she found that Mr Williams’ case “does not present any real prospect of success and must be dismissed forthwith”.
The judge concluded that Mr Williams’ claim failed to prove that the bank had breached a statutory duty of care that would have resulted in exemplary damages.
“There is no reference to any relevant duty, no statement as to the source and scope of the duty, no material facts alleged as to breach of established duty, and no allegation of causation or loss and damage arising from the alleged breach of duty,” he wrote.
“Plaintiff clearly misunderstands the respective roles and rights of the plaintiff in the civil case and of the regulatory authority, as well as the availability of remedies and the court’s jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief.”
Judge Goulden wrote that Mr Williams understood uBank’s denial of liability for the transactions to be “tantamount to an allegation” that he was personally involved in the Coles purchases and made an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud.
The judge dismissed the case on the condition that Mr. Williams be paid $1,338.55 by the bank.
