← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case mistake

Petelin v Cullen

(1975) 132 CLR 355
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year1975
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Non est factum defence available to a non-English speaker who signed documents without understanding their nature or effect, provided the signer was not careless.

Key Principle

Non est factum in banking context; guarantor with limited English could not read guarantee; document signed was fundamentally different from what was believed

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Petelin v Cullen and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Petelin v Cullen