Source : THE AGE NEWS
A NSW Supreme Court judge has accused Westpac of lacking “basic commercial morality” after he was forced to demand its chief executive Anthony Miller appear in court to fix a mortgage issue worth just $40 that left one of its customers unable to buy a home.
Fiona Vinall, who is suing Westpac-owned St George for misleading and deceptive conduct, scored a victory on Monday when justice David Hammerschlag ordered the bank to remove any adverse credit information about her from reporting agency Equifax Australia.
Vinall’s dispute with the bank began after her mortgage repayments fell last July following an interest rate decrease. She inadvertently began repaying at the reduced rate a month early based on her reading of the bank’s emails, which informed her that the new rate began “after July 10 2025.” The bank understood this to mean that the lower rate kicked in the following month. Justice Hammerschlag described St George’s emails about the rate increase “at best ambiguous, and at worst likely to mislead”.
Either way, Vinall subsequently incurred a $44.11 shortfall, which the bank reported to credit reporting bodies as “adverse repayment history information”. Under federal legislation, banks are required to inform credit rating agencies of such shortfalls within 14 days.
The court heard that this led to a substantial deterioration in Vinall’s credit rating. Later last year, Vinall bought a new home for herself and daughter in Box Hill, Western Sydney, but was unable to settle on the property because mortgage brokers said her credit rating made new lending impossible.
Even though the shortfall had been made up by August, the bank had, Hammerschlag said, been “obdurate” in refusing to remove the adverse credit notice at Vinall’s request. She then commenced legal proceedings, all over just $44.11.
At a preliminary hearing in January, nobody appeared for St George because notice of the proceedings had not reached an appropriate destination within the bank despite the Vinall’s lawyers contacting Westpac via email as authorised by the court.
“The plaintiff tried to contact the bank more than once during the day, without being able to achieve any response,” Hammershlag said. Staff for another judge overseeing that hearing, Justice Michael Slattery, also tried to contact the bank to no avail. Slattery then ordered the removal of the black mark on Vinall’s credit.
But at a subsequent hearing on February 6, when the bank eventually sent lawyers along, it was unwilling to back down and remove the adverse credit information.
“The bank arrived, represented by counsel and armed with an affidavit from a bank officer seeking to defend the indefensible,” Hammerschlag said.
Westpac argued that it was powerless to change Vinall’s adverse credit information provided to third parties. It said it could only ask Equifax for a change, which it had not done. That approach won few favours with the judge.
Hammerschlag demanded that Westpac chief executive Anthony Miller appear in court at the next hearing three days later, a step he described as “unusual but not unknown”.
Over the weekend, Westpac moved quickly. The bank’s solicitors told Hammerschlag that they had successfully taken steps to remove Vinall’s adverse payment history from credit registers. Miller was excused from appearing in court.
In his judgment, Hammerschlag was scathing about Westpac’s conduct.
“I regard the refusal of the bank to fix the problem as legally unjustifiable and short on commercial morality,” he said.
“Having regard to the de minimis [trivial] dimensions of the shortfall, the substantially unequal bargaining position of the parties, the profound adverse consequences for the plaintiff of the adverse credit reporting being maintained … not taking steps to erase the recorded event was unconscionable.”
The matter is set to be transferred to the District Court, which will hear Vinall’s claim for damages.
In a statement, a Westpac spokesperson said the bank acknowledged the judgment and would assess implications, but declined to comment further as the matter remains before the court.
“Westpac complies with mandatory credit reporting obligations under law, which require missed repayments to be reported to credit agencies,” the spokesperson said.
Westpac was also ordered to pay Vinall’s costs, which no doubt amounted to more than $44.11.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
Kishor Napier-Raman is a senior business writer for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Previously he worked as a CBD columnist and reporter in the federal parliamentary press gallery.Connect via X or email.
