SoulManX
The Inspector!
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 11,028
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 58
ONE of the country's major banks has taken a former customer to court in a dispute over $11 million it says was mistakenly transferred to his account.
Westpac Bank launched the legal action against North Coast real estate agent Victor Ollis who drew cheques but denies any fraud.
He yesterday told the Supreme Court that if Westpac "can't do their job properly . . . it's the bank's responsibility".
Mr Ollis had an automatic transfer facility with the bank, which topped up his business account using funds from his personal account. The transfers should have been stopped after his personal account was overdrawn in February 2004, the court heard yesterday.
But due to an error at Westpac, his account continued to be replenished - only with money "from the bank's own pocket".
Between June and December 2005, Westpac honoured cheques totalling about $11 million written by Mr Ollis. The bank launched legal action against him after the mistake came to light in January 2006.
Hearing details of the transactions, Justice Clifford Einstein remarked it was a situation that could arguably bring a bank down.
Are the big banks right to take legal action when they make the mistake? Tell us what you think via the feedback section below.
Westpac is also suing Mr Ollis's partner Gail Shields over $4.8 million he transferred to her.
The Kempsey couple, whose assets have been frozen by the NSW Crime Commission, are representing themselves as the bank seeks to recover the money.
Counsel for Westpac, James Stevenson SC, argued that Mr Ollis must have realised the "improbability of there being any innocent explanation" for the continuing bank transfers, especially due to the large amounts of money involved.
But Mr Ollis told the court: "I haven't fraudulently misused the bank in any way."
"I never deviated or varied in any way, shape or form from normal banking policy and everything I did was standard," he said from the bar table.
"If the bank can't look after their money, if the bank can't do their job properly . . . it's the bank's responsibility."
Ms Shields is defending the case on the grounds that she believed the money she borrowed from Mr Ollis was legitimately his.
Mr Stevenson said Mr Ollis started out cautiously by writing a cheque for $40,000. By the end of 2005, he was writing cheques for more than 10 times that amount. During that period he did not deposit any money into either of his accounts, the court heard.
Mr Stevenson said: "A human error meant the facility "kept working, except it was drawing money from the bank's own pocket."
The case continues.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22279275-5001021,00.html
Westpac Bank launched the legal action against North Coast real estate agent Victor Ollis who drew cheques but denies any fraud.
He yesterday told the Supreme Court that if Westpac "can't do their job properly . . . it's the bank's responsibility".
Mr Ollis had an automatic transfer facility with the bank, which topped up his business account using funds from his personal account. The transfers should have been stopped after his personal account was overdrawn in February 2004, the court heard yesterday.
But due to an error at Westpac, his account continued to be replenished - only with money "from the bank's own pocket".
Between June and December 2005, Westpac honoured cheques totalling about $11 million written by Mr Ollis. The bank launched legal action against him after the mistake came to light in January 2006.
Hearing details of the transactions, Justice Clifford Einstein remarked it was a situation that could arguably bring a bank down.
Are the big banks right to take legal action when they make the mistake? Tell us what you think via the feedback section below.
Westpac is also suing Mr Ollis's partner Gail Shields over $4.8 million he transferred to her.
The Kempsey couple, whose assets have been frozen by the NSW Crime Commission, are representing themselves as the bank seeks to recover the money.
Counsel for Westpac, James Stevenson SC, argued that Mr Ollis must have realised the "improbability of there being any innocent explanation" for the continuing bank transfers, especially due to the large amounts of money involved.
But Mr Ollis told the court: "I haven't fraudulently misused the bank in any way."
"I never deviated or varied in any way, shape or form from normal banking policy and everything I did was standard," he said from the bar table.
"If the bank can't look after their money, if the bank can't do their job properly . . . it's the bank's responsibility."
Ms Shields is defending the case on the grounds that she believed the money she borrowed from Mr Ollis was legitimately his.
Mr Stevenson said Mr Ollis started out cautiously by writing a cheque for $40,000. By the end of 2005, he was writing cheques for more than 10 times that amount. During that period he did not deposit any money into either of his accounts, the court heard.
Mr Stevenson said: "A human error meant the facility "kept working, except it was drawing money from the bank's own pocket."
The case continues.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22279275-5001021,00.html
