Australia: Guarantors and the Code of Banking Practice

Two cases decided in the final 2 months of 2015 — George 218 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd1 (George 218) and Doggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia2 (Doggett) have provided the courts with an opportunity to consider the interaction between the 2013 Code of Banking Practice (Code) and guarantors.

In George 218, the Western Australian Supreme Court confirmed unequivocally that the Code has no operation in respect of corporate guarantors. This is in contrast to the position of corporate borrowers. There is scope for the Code to operate in a loan agreement between a bank and a "small business" corporate borrower. A "small business" as defined by the Code could include a special purpose vehicle borrower with fewer than 20 employees, thereby extending the protective regime of the Code to larger enterprises.3

In Doggett, the Victorian Court of Appeal considered the incorporation and interpretation of certain Code obligations into individual guarantees, finding that while a Code obligation had been incorporated and breached, the appellants were not entitled to relief because they had entered into a letter of compromise releasing the bank from such a claim.

Taken together, George 218 and Doggett are further reminders that care needs to be taken by borrowers and lenders alike when considering the applicability of the Code to arrangements with guarantors.

The Code of Banking Practice

The Code is published by the Australian Bankers' Association Inc (ABA), the national organisation of licensed banks in Australia. The ABA describes the Code as "the banking industry's customer charter on best banking practice standards".4 The Code applies to consumer and small business customers, and their guarantors,5 and contains general principles as well as detailed rules.

The Code was first published in 1993, and again in 2004, and each of those iterations was considered a significant advance in consumer protection at the time.6 Following a review conducted by Jan McClelland in 2007–8,7 the Code was revised and the most recent version was published in 2013, commencing on 1 February 2014.8

The Code is voluntary9 and its adoption has been widespread.10 If the Code is incorporated contractually into an agreement between banker and customer, compliance with Code obligations is reviewable by the courts. As has been observed, claims brought against banks for breaches of the Code (including claims brought defensively) are becoming increasingly frequent.11

Individual guarantors and the Code: Doggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

The appellants, Steven Doggett and Kevin Sullivan, incorporated Dogvan 007 Pty Ltd (Dogvan) for the purpose of purchasing property and management rights in an apartment complex. Dogvan obtained a loan from the Commonwealth Bank (Bank) to be provided by a bill facility, which was guaranteed by the appellants in their individual capacities. Each of the bill facility and the guarantees contained a clause stating "relevant provisions of the Code of Banking Practice apply".12 The Bank argued (among other things) that cl 25.1 of the 2004 Code of Banking Practice (2004 Code) was not a "relevant" provision of the guarantees.

The court first considered cl 25.1 in the context of the bill facility. McLeish JA (Whelan JA and Garde AJA agreeing as to the analysis of the application of the Code)13 acknowledged that a bank would naturally consider the financial position of a guarantor in carrying out its credit assessment of a borrower, but considered that that did not mean that the question to be asked in fulfilment of the obligation owed under cl 25.1 is whether the combined resources of borrower and any guarantors will be sufficient to service the loan. The Bank undertook to exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker in forming its opinion about Dogvan's ability to repay (noting that regard could properly be had to the availability to Dogvan of financial assistance from other sources).14

The court then turned to the guarantees. Determining whether cl 25.1 was "relevant" to the guarantees was a two step process: first, the clause incorporating the relevant provisions must be construed to determine the width of the incorporation; second, the incorporated words must be read into the guarantees to see whether any incorporated wording was inconsistent, insensible or in any way in conflict with the expressly agreed terms when placed in that context.

In the case of a guarantee, the likelihood that a borrower will fail to meet its obligations is a matter of critical importance to parties to a guarantee. The court held that a promise by a bank as to the level of care it will take in conducting its assessment of that likelihood is properly "relevant" to the guarantee, and in the present case, therefore within the scope of the interpretation clause.

In reading cl 25.1 as incorporated into the guarantees, the central issue was the meaning of "you" and "your" as used in cl 25.1. The Bank submitted that except in the three clauses specified in the definition clause (cl 42 of the 2013 Code15), "you" and "your" referred only to persons being offered or granted a credit facility — in the present case, Dogvan, which was not a party to the guarantee — so it followed that clause 25.1 could have no sensible operation if incorporated into the guarantees.

The court accepted that the reference to "you" in cl 25.1 as incorporated into the guarantees referred to Dogvan, but held that it did not follow that cl 25.1 could have no sensible operation. What followed was that in discharging its obligations to the appellants under the guarantees, the Bank had a duty to exercise the care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker in assessing Dogvan's ability to repay.

The court was not dissuaded from this view by cl 28.4(d) of the 2004 Code (cl 31.4(d) of the 2013 Code), which requires a bank to provide a guarantor with information regarding the borrower's finances, which indicates that a guarantor makes his/her own inquiries as to a borrower's ability to repay. In fact, the court held that an expectation that both parties would make such inquiries sat comfortably with an obligation on the bank to do so exercising a level of care and skill to be expected from an entity of its expertise. In the court's view, it would be hard to explain, if not perverse, for the bank to owe such an obligation to the borrower — who is more able to accurately assess its ability to repay than its guarantor — and deny that such an obligation was owed to the guarantor.

The court proceeded to confirm the first instance result — although breach of the Code obligation was established,16 the court held unanimously that the letter of compromise was sufficient to release the Bank from any claim alleging breach of cl 25.1 of the 2004 Code. On the question of whether the breach caused loss (which was not dispositive of the appeal), Whelan JA (Garde AJA agreeing)17 also upheld the first instance finding that the breach of cl 25.1 caused the appellants loss, while McLeish JA found that the appellants failed to discharge their onus of proving that had cl 25.1 not been breached, the Dogvan bill facility would not have been advanced.18

This result illustrates that even where a Code obligation is incorporated, and breach is established, a claimant may not be entitled to relief.19

Corporate guarantors and the Code: George 218 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland

Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success), a company controlled by Tina Bazzo, borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest). Ms Bazzo and three other companies she controlled (the plaintiffs) executed guarantees in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. The loan to Statewest was then repaid, using funds borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home). Statewest's rights under the guarantees (in respect of any future loans) as well as Home's rights under its loan agreement were transferred to the Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

BOQ granted Success a loan to pay out its existing facilities secured by mortgages, and the plaintiffs executed a deed in which they agreed that the guarantees originally provided to Statewest operated in respect of this loan. Success defaulted on this loan and, after the sale of the mortgaged property, there remained a shortfall owing to BOQ of $2,274,516. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings, claiming (among other things) that the guarantees did not apply to secure the BOQ loan to Success.

The claim raised a number of issues, including whether any liability of the plaintiffs under the guarantees was discharged by reason of alleged breaches of the Code by BOQ — it was argued that, contrary to cl 28.3 of the 2004 Code (cl 31.3 of the 2013 Code) the guarantees did not state that the Code applied; and the guarantees were for an unlimited amount (cl 28.2 of the 2004 Code (cl 31.2 of the 2013 Code) required that the bank only accept a guarantee limited to either a specific amount, or to the value of a specified security).

The court (Mitchell J) had no difficulty in rejecting the aspect of the plaintiffs' claim that relied on the Code.20 First, the court held that the Code by its terms only applies to guarantees by individuals. Clause 28.1 (cl 31.1 of the 2013 Code) provides that the clause of the Code governing guarantees:

... applies to every guarantee and indemnity obtained from you (where you are an individual at the time the guarantee and indemnity is taken) for the purpose of securing any financial accommodation or facility provided by us to another individual or a small business ... [Bold in original and indicates defined terms].

Further, there was no evidence that the terms of the Code were incorporated into the guarantees or the loan agreement. Mere adoption of the Code by a bank, without incorporation into a contract, is insufficient for the Code to be incorporated. In addition, there was no evidence that Statewest had adopted the Code at the time the guarantees were executed.

The court went on to observe that the loan agreement was expressly conditional upon the provision of an unlimited guarantee; and the guarantees made clear that that the liability created was unlimited. Even if the Code was incorporated by reference, the clear and express provisions of the guarantees and the loan agreement would prevail.

While obiter, this observation is consistent with the second step of the two step process described by the court in Doggett, and indicates that courts would not be willing to construe as "relevant" provisions of the Code that are contrary to the express terms of a loan agreement or guarantee — again, highlighting the significance of the incorporating clause required by cl 12.3 of the Code.

The position of guarantors post - George 218 and Doggett

Doggett makes clear that Code obligations can be incorporated into banking facilities and guarantees given by individuals. This case demonstrates that where the Code is incorporated into a loan and guarantee (where the guarantor is an individual), the bank may owe both borrower and guarantor an obligation to take due care and skill in selecting and applying credit assessment methods and considering the borrower's ability to repay.

Conversely, George 218 confirms that the Code does not operate in respect of corporate guarantors. However, those entering into corporate guarantees still need to be aware of the potential "long-arm reach" of the Code due to the definition of "small business" in the Code. It remains a live possibility that a borrower that is a small business or special purpose vehicle of less than 20 employees could still fall within the operation of the Code.


1 George 218 Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2015] WASC 434; BC201511125.
2 Doggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] VSCA 351; BC201512471.
3 See Dr N D'Angelo and K Cibich "Beware the Code of Banking Practice — it's not just for retail and consumer banking" (2015) 31(7) BLB 141.
4 Australian Bankers' Association, Code of Banking Practice,
5 Code, cl 1.
6See, eg, N Howell "Revisiting the Australian Code of Banking Practice: Is self-regulation still relevant for improving consumer protection standards?" (2015) (38)(2) UNSW Law Journal 544 at 545.
7 Jan McClelland and Associates Pty Ltd Review of the Code of Banking Practice Final Report (December 2008)
8 For an examination of the more significant changes made as a result of that review, see N Mirzai "The 2013 Code of Banking Practice: effect, effectiveness and comment" (2013) 28(8) BLB 139.
9 Code, cl 1. In 2012, the Banking Amendment (Banking Code of Conduct) Bill 2012 (Cth), which sought to make the Code mandatory, was introduced in the House of Representatives but did not proceed.
10For a list of banks that have adopted the Code, see ABA, Banks that have adopted versions of the Code of Banking Practice, 31 January 2014,
11 See, eg above n 3, at 141.
12 See Code, cll 12.3 and 31.3.
13 Above n 2, at [1] per Whelan JA and [218] per Garde AJA.
14 Above n 2, at [120] per McLeish JA.
15 Cl 42 provides: "you and your means a person who, at the time the banking service is provided, is an individual or a small business that is our customer ... and includes, in clauses 31, 35 and 2, any individual from whom we have obtained or propose to obtain a Guarantee...".
16 See above n 2, at [148]–[162].
17 Above n 2, at [2] per Whelan JA and [219] per Garde AJA.
18 Above n 2, at [100(q)] and [188] per McLeish JA.
19 See also
Williams v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2013] NSWSC 335; BC201301853, which held that even if the Code obligations had been complied with, the customer would still have entered into the agreements, and commentary in R Dennings and E Hamman "Breach of Code of Banking Practice does not necessarily lead to relief" (2013) 29(3) BLB 41; and National Australia Bank v Rice [2015] VSC 10; BC201502030, cited in National Australia Bank v McCarthy [2015] NSWSC 1040; BC201507055 at [35], as authority for the principle that even if breach of the Code is established, it is not necessarily actionable.
20 Above n 1, at [226]–[237].

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Most awarded firm and Australian deal of the year
Australasian Legal Business Awards
Employer of Choice for Women
Equal Opportunity for Women
in the Workplace (EOWA)

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions