“Hey, bank, you should have stopped that share sale!”  

Spouse A invited Spouse B to become a trustee of a SMSF that was previously solely Spouse A’s. The SMSF and the spouses had a number of *joint* bank accounts and *joint* stock trading accounts.  

Spouse B caused a sale of shares from the joint stock trading account ([39]) and a transfer of the proceeds from the joint account into an account of Spouse B’s: [84].  

The marriage didn’t last.  

Family law proceedings led to an outcome.   

However, Spouse A also pursued the bank in the Supreme Court claiming: it was negligent in (i) allowing the share sale, (ii) failing to seek Spouse A’s consent before allowing the share sale, and (iii) failing to prevent the withdrawal of the sale proceeds: [86]  

The relationship between the spouses and the bank was purely commercial, with no duty of care attaching to it: [90].   

As part of that relationship, the bank was contractually entitled to accept instructions from both spouses.  

The effect of Spouse A’s argument was that the bank could not accept Spouse B’s instructions, a direct conflict to the terms of the contract that allowed joint use: [95].  

Any duty owed by the bank to the spouses was contractual and not breached.  

The claim in negligence failed: [96] and [97].