TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CIVIL CLAIMS LIST
MONDAY 19 MARCH 2007
BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HARBISON
B E T W E E N
HARIHARAN IYER Applicant
- and -
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION Respondent
CRS WORDWAVE PTY LTD - A MERRILL COMPANY
3/221 Queen Street, Melbourne. Telephone: 9602 1799
Facsimile: 9642 5185
1 HER HONOUR: Mr Iyer, you appear on your own behalf?
2 MR IYER: Yes.
3 MR STRONG: My name is Strong. I am of counsel. The question
4 of representation was raised at the Directions hearing I
5 believe but no formal order was made and I seek
6 permission to appear as professional advocate for Westpac
7 Banking Corporation.
8 HER HONOUR: Mr Iyer, is there any reason why I shouldn't give
9 Westpac the right to have counsel appear before me today?
10 MR IYER: Your Honour, I am not quite familiar about the
11 procedure, whether I have right to object for somebody
12 else appearing today.
13 HER HONOUR: Well in minor matters sometimes the Tribunal
14 requires people to present their own cases. This is a
15 matter in which you have claimed quite a lot of money so
16 unless there is some extraordinary reason that I don't
17 know about I would plan to give Westpac the right to be
18 represented by counsel. Is there any matter that you
19 wish to raise as to that?
20 MR IYER: The only reason I would probably say is that I have
21 not been notified that there is somebody else appearing,
22 that's all. If that is permitted within the procedures I
23 have got no objection to that.
24 HER HONOUR: Who appeared for Westpac at the earlier Directions
26 MR IYER: I forget the name of the other gentleman.
27 MR STRONG: It was my instructing solicitor, Mr Ewer.
28 HER HONOUR: Yes, well if a solicitor has appeared at all the
29 other Directions hearings and given, as I said, that a
30 large amount of money has been claimed, I will give
31 Westpac leave to be represented by counsel in this
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 1 DISCUSSION
1 proceeding, thank you.
2 MR STRONG: If Your Honour pleases.
3 HER HONOUR: Yes, now Mr Iyer it is your case. Do you wish to
4 start with your application?
5 MR IYER: Yes, yes. Am I allowed to read something from my
6 notes?I would like to read something.
7 HER HONOUR: Well first of all what I want you to do is tell me
8 is there a document that you have prepared that sets out
9 what your claim is in this matter.
10 MR IYER: Yes it is.
11 HER HONOUR: So where is it, have you got it there? Perhaps
12 you can hand it up. Is this a document that you have
13 shown to the solicitors for Westpac?
14 MR IYER: I have given one set for them already and one set is
16 HER HONOUR: All right, well perhaps you can identify from the
17 file the documents that you rely on. Stay there and the
18 document file will be brought to you. All right, now
19 Asas I understand it there is a document headed
20 "Introduction to the case, the parties, their knowledge
21 and background." Do you have that?
22 MR STRONG: Yes I do.
23 HER HONOUR: There is another document which is dated 1 March
24 2007 which is headed "Final version with correct claims
25 on page 2 and 3."
26 MR STRONG: Yes, we have that your Honour.
27 HER HONOUR: So which of these documents do you want me to be
28 looking at, Mr Iyer, the introduction?
29 MR IYER: The introduction of the first one. This case is - I
30 am bringing to your office as a point of misleading,
31 false and deceptive conduct by a licensed reputed
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 2 DISCUSSION
1 (indistinct) institution operating in Victoria, not
2 abiding by the requirements of the Fair Trading Act,
4 HER HONOUR: Which section of the Fair Trading Act do you say
5 you claim comes under?
6 MR IYER: Section 9 and section 8. Section 9 for misleading,
7 false and deceptive conduct and section 8(C) and (D)D for
8 unconscionable conduct. Section 9 for misleading
9 deceptive conduct and section 11, misleading conduct in
10 relation to sub-leases(indistinct)(2.39).
11 This case is about the justification and not the
12 legitimacy(indistinct) of charging compound interest on
13 home loans, car loans and personal loans in Victoria.
14 HER HONOUR: So do you have a home loan and car loan from
16 MR IYER: I have a home loan that I rolled over to another bank
17 in March 2002 and I had a personal loan but I'm not
18 bringing that as part of this case.
19 HER HONOUR: All right, so your claim is in relation to a home
21 MR IYER: Only.
22 HER HONOUR: And you have paid out that loan?
23 MR IYER: I have paid Westpac but then I transferred to
24 National Australia Bank, yes. This case is not about - I
25 am not here about to talk about the rate of interest,
26 advice and the fluctuations in the interest rates in the
27 market due to market economic conditions. I am not here
28 to talk about the rights of the licensed lender, whether
29 they have a right to charge compound interest or simple
30 interest, I am not talking about those. I am not here to
31 talk about the borrower's duty to pay interest at an
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 3 DISCUSSION
1 agreed rate, subject to changes due to and only due to
2 market fluctuations. What I mean is if the interest that
3 is being charged on me is only due to market fluctuation
4 I have got no questions about those, only in case there
5 is something hidden, that is not being told. That is
6 what I am coming up to.
7 This case is not about whether it is appropriate or
8 not that compound interest company (indistinct)charged by
9 the licensed lender is tax deductible or has interest
10 expense in productive(indistinct) loans. I am not
11 bringing any tax related matter into this case.
12 HER HONOUR: Well perhaps you might tell me what it is about.
13 I am not going to be interested, obviously, in things
14 that this case is not about. So what is it about?
15 MR IYER: It is, as I mentioned on the first page, the first
16 two paragraphs. There arey are only two paragraphs that
17 I am here to speak about as the primary reason why I have
18 broughtgot this before you. It is false, misleading. In
19 other words all I am saying is what I have been - all the
20 duty (indistinct)(2.42)to be disclosed, I should have
21 been told and they have not told until just I had
22 surprise information that it has been disclosed what
23 happened just last week, which never took place for all
24 this time when I have been requesting and begging around
25 to show me. Where this, how are you charging compound
26 interest, simple interest? Nobody ever bothered about my
27 problem, so I need to bring that and suddenly only I have
28 brought it in front of VCAT and that too only when I
29 insisted that I go for a (indistinct) hearing at the time
30 I get some kind of legal reference that has been provided
31 by the courtesy of their representation. - - -
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 4 DISCUSSION
1 HER HONOUR: So this case is about your home loan. You have
2 documents in relation to the home loan that you entered
3 into with Westpac?
4 MR IYER: Yes I have got the loan everywhere.
5 HER HONOUR: Hand those up to me. I will give you the file and
6 you can tell me which documents I should be looking at
7 Mr Iyer. There is a document headed Bank of Melbourne
8 which was a division of Westpac. It is , a loan offer
9 document and it is dated - - -
10 MR IYER: At the bottom of that, on the left hand side the
12 HER HONOUR: 7 October 1999. Do you have a copy of that
14 MR STRONG: Yes I do.
15 HER HONOUR: This is the document which sets out the home loan
16 from Westpac in the sum of $148,400.
17 MR IYER: That's right. This document was, as we can see,
18 prepared on 7 October 1999. , Tthat happened to be a
19 Thursday in that year, that month and we got a call from
20 the Bank of Melbourne, Cranbourne branch, that the loan
21 is being approved and we need to come there to sign the
22 document. We couldn't go on Friday and we hadve an
23 appointment on Monday which was 11 October.
24 HER HONOUR: Yes, so you signed the document on 11 October, and
25 when you say "we" is it yourself and your wife?
26 MR IYER: Yes, myself and my wife.
27 HER HONOUR: Are you bringing this claim on her behalf as well.
28 MR IYER: Sure yes. So, we went there to Bank of Melbourne in
29 Cranbourne on the 11th, if I remember well it's about
30 11 o'clock in the morning and the manager there
31 congratulated that we are getting our home and our loan
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 5 DISCUSSION
1 has been approved and we just have to sign the document.
2 They showed where I had to sign and I requested the
3 manager to tell me if it's a standard contract and he
4 said, "Every contract here is a standard contract" and I
5 trusted this because they have got nothing particularly
6 against me to prepare a separate document.
7 HER HONOUR: I will just interrupt you there and just say this.
8 Mr Strong, I think it may be worthwhile for Mr Iyer just
9 to set out his claim first. He may have to give
10 evidence in the witness box as to these issues but I just
11 want to have an understanding because, although there has
12 been a lot of documents filed, I don't yet have a clear
13 understanding of what the case is about. So, are you
14 happy if Mr Iyer sets out his claim and then he can go
15 into the witness box?
16 MR STRONG: That might cause some repetition. Perhaps another
17 course would be for him to take the oath and give his
18 evidence at the same time as he is presenting his case.
19 HER HONOUR: Yes, I had expected that you might be able to tell
20 me in summary Mr Iyer, what the case was about. If you
21 are going to go into all this detail then it is right
22 what Mr Strong says, we don't want to have to do it
23 twice. Perhaps you can just summarise the amounts you
24 say you are owed by Westpac and once you've done that
25 I'll get you to go into the witness box and give evidence
26 about the circumstances of your claim. So, what amounts
27 are you owed under this contract, and why?
28 MR IYER: The amount that I have worked out that andI presented
29 to VCAT and to the respondent earlier, I worked out on an
30 average, on the compounding effect on an average that I
31 have been charged 51.314 per cent more than what I was
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 6 DISCUSSION
1 supposed to pay. Then I got the different counsel
2 presentation saying that that was an
3 average(indistinct)(2.47) an average and they wanted to
4 work out on daily basis, daily compounding basis
5 whatever, applying . Applyingthe logic that I have
6 presented, and I did the calculation again and when I did
7 the calculation it comes to - the respondent has come up
8 saying that I have paid only $1,500 more than what I was
9 supposed to pay. Unfortunately in spite of this case
10 coming in front of you that calculation is still wrong.
11 What I have paid more is not $1,500. What, what I have
12 paid more is $1,001.89.
13 HER HONOUR: $1,001.89.
14 MR IYER: That is what I have paid more, not $1,500.
15 HER HONOUR: So the difference between what you should have
16 been charged and what you have been charged is $1,001.89.
17 MR IYER: $1,001.89 is what I have charged more but they are
18 coming to saying that $1,500 I have been charged more
19 only after I came to VCAT.
20 HER HONOUR: I want to know as of today how much you say you
21 have been overcharged on this loan contract.
22 MR IYER: $1,001.89.
23 HER HONOUR: So is that your claim?
24 MR IYER: That is my actual claim yes, that's right, that's
25 what I have paid more from my pocket.
26 HER HONOUR: So this is a claim for $1,001.89, is that right?
27 MR IYER: That's right.
28 HER HONOUR: And that's all?, and that is all?
29 MR IYER: Plus the cost of coming to you and plus the time and
30 everything that I have incurred, that's exemplary damage
31 I was claiming there. I'm explaining there.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 7 DISCUSSION
1 HER HONOUR: Well you don't get exemplary damages from
2 preparing a case. You have prepared this case, you
3 haven't had solicitors act for you?
4 MR IYER: No.
5 HER HONOUR: So you don't have any out of pocket expenses.
6 MR IYER: Right.
7 HER HONOUR: So the amount you are saying that you have been
8 overcharged on this loan is $1,001.89?
9 MR IYER: Yes, I don't want to take advantage of the respondent
10 saying I have paid $1,500. No I have paid $1,001.89
12 HER HONOUR: All right, get in the witness box please.
13 <HARIHAN IYER, sworn and examined:
14 HER HONOUR: Your full name, address and occupation?---My full
15 name is Hariharan Iyer and the address is 16 Cuthbert
16 Place, Burnside, Victoria 3023 and my occupation - I'm an
18 I have already asked you some questions and you have told me
19 that the claim in this matter is based on the loan
20 document which is dated 7 October 1999 which I have but
21 which was signed by yourself and your wife on
22 11 October 1999. So perhaps you can now tell me under
23 oath what is claimed under this document and how you have
24 calculated that claim?---The loan document says that the
25 amount of credit is $148,400 annual percentage variable
26 housing rate.
27 Sorry, where should I be looking?---In the front - - -
28 Yes, amount of credit $148,400?---And the next line annual
29 percentage rate, variable housing rate which is currently
30 6.55 per cent per annum will apply.
31 Yes?---Your Honour in all my knowledge and experience, my
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 8 IYER XN
1 understanding and education 6.55 per cent per annum to me
2 straight away rings that bell that it is an annual
3 interest rate (indistinct)(2.52) annual interest
4 ratewhich I studied in mathematics as simple interest.
5 Why would you think that?---Because my teachers have taught me
6 if there is an interest per annum, "pa" stands for per
7 annum and that's simple interest, that means interest is
8 always calculated on the principle. That's what they
9 taught me.
10 Yes?---Whenever I have asked for loan I always try to shop
11 around the interest rate being at least .25 per cent
12 better than another bank that is offering the same loan
13 for me and I have been always taught thoughtthat interest
14 percentage per annum which certainly rang the bell to me
15 is certainly billed to me only only as simple interest.
16 Unsuspectingly I have gone, I have signed the contract, I
17 have commenced repayment, I have asked my question to the
18 manager because checking the signature, whether it's a
19 standard contract, which he agreed it's a standard
20 contract. I didn't have anything to suspect, a reputed
21 licensed institution to be saying something to me and
22 doing something in their calculation. I trusted
23 thateverything is right, I have paid my home loans on
24 regular repayments without any default. I have been a
25 very honest person paying the money on time and I find
26 that the amount that they have calculated is not really
27 working out the right way. In September 2006 just about
28 five or six months back I startedsat down to find out
29 whether all the interest they have charged they are
30 entitled or not. I worked out a hypothesis, because in
31 mathematics always my teachers have taught me saying that
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 9 IYER XN
1 we start with an hypothesis of unknown item as "x" or
2 unknown item as "100." So I started my calculation as
3 $100,000 as a home loan that somebody is borrowing.
4 I do not want to deal with hypothesis. I want to deal with this
5 actual contract I have in front of me. What do you say
6 you thought was meant by the words "Standard
7 contract"?---It meant to me that everybody gets a similar
8 type of contract except that they insert only the actual
9 amount of dollars that they're borrowing, plus the
10 interest rate and the term. That is what I thought is
11 being inserted when it's a standard contract.
12 So why do you say that was wrong? What was incorrect about
13 calling the contract a standard contract in this
14 case?---There is nothing wrong to call that contract a
15 standard contract except that the standard contract
16 doesn't tell exactly that 6.55 per cent per annum is
17 compounding monthly. They have failed to mention, failed
18 to alert me, that this is a compound monthly concept they
19 are following. That has not been disclosed to me.
20 Why do you say that should have been disclosed to
21 you?---Because if they had told me it is compounding
22 monthly I would have rejected the loan straight away, I
23 would have waited for a few more years until I gathered
24 some more money as a deposit, I'll go for 50 per cent of
25 capital for buying the house. I have lived here without
26 having my own house and own car for many years.
27 So you say the difference between what you thought you were
28 going to be charged for interest, and what you were
29 actually charged is $1,001.89?---Luckily, because I
30 stayed with them only for two years.
31 So you say that difference of $1,001,89 would have alerted - if
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 10 IYER XN
1 you had known about that you wouldn't have entered into
2 the loan. Is that what you are saying?---If I knew that
3 - over a period of 25 years loan it is not $1,001. Over
4 a period of 25 years it is 47 per cent more than what I'm
5 supposed to pay.
6 You understand all I can deal with today is your contract and
7 what you have lost?---Right.
8 But you. You say you thought this was a simple interest rate
9 but, in fact, it is compound interest rate and, as a
10 result of that, you have lost $1,001.89?---Yes.
11 . Are there any other matters about entering into this
12 contract that you want to explain to me?---The way the
13 contract, the loan approval, the way the contract has
14 been pressured to sign. I have been under pressure to
15 sign this contract because I didn't apply for the loan
16 directly to the Bank of Melbourne. I had to apply
17 through the builder and the builder had pressure on me to
18 tell them whether we are going ahead or not. At that
19 point I had been told my loan is approved, so once my
20 loan is approved all that I have to ensure is I'm signing
21 the normal regular contract. I signed it and I just
22 wanted to keep things going. That's all I did.
23 You understand this is not a claim against the builder, this is
24 a claim against Westpac?---Sure..
25 You are not saying you were pressured to sign by
26 Westpac?---Yes, that's what I'm saying.
27 You were?---Yes.
28 So who was it at Westpac who pressured you to sign?---Westpac
29 didn't give me the time, Westpac didn't tell me "we don't
30 know whether this contract is clear for you or not, we
31 suggest you take it to solicitor and read that." I
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 11 IYER XN
1 thought probably if there is something that is customary
2 of trade practices in Melbourne, I would have expected
3 the bank to alert me to go to a solicitor and get an
4 opinion before I sign.
5 So what is it you think the bank should have alerted you
6 about?---About all the terms and conditions in this
7 because on page 10 - the condition on page 10 is the one
8 that in the summary contract, it's 10 of the 24 pages.
9 It is the document entitled "You and your loan."
10 I don't know whether I have got that. The document I've got,
11 the loan offer finishes at page 8. Just check that that
12 is what you meant. If that is the document then I will
13 take it from there. I am looking at page 10 of the terms
14 and conditions. Whereabouts?---Before we go into that
15 can I draw your attention to the front page of this loan
17 Yes?---From the top, the third line says, "All the terms and
18 conditions of the lenders offer to you are set out in
19 this letter and the accompanying booklet of standard
20 terms and conditions, version B and E.008 of the booklet"
21 - - -
22 I have lost you, which page was that?---The first page, I am
23 reading from this portion.
24 This is the loan offer document. I have got that. So this
25 loan offer is to be read with the booklet "You and your
26 loans"?---And what it says, the next line there is very
27 important for me to bring to your attention. "If there
28 is any inconsistency the letter prevails."
29 Yes?---Now when I read the first eight pages that you have got
30 of the loan offer nowhere have I come across either the
31 word "compounding monthly" or the words "Interest will be
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 12 IYER XN
1 charged on interest." I have not come across in the
2 first eight pages anywhere. When I read in the next
3 document, "You and your loan" on page 10 of 24 pages,
4 p.10 has got it then has got point 9, condition F "How
5 the lender applies your repayments" and it is set out if
6 you have the subsidised loan wethey will apply all
7 payments made by you in the following order "to the
8 extent the payment covers each amount, first any unpaid
9 government(indistinct) charges" No disputes about that.
10 Second "Any unpaid enforcement expenses" no questions
11 about that. Third, "Any unpaid interest which has been
12 debited to the loan account on or before the date of
13 payment." Fourth, "Any other unpaid fees andor charges"
14 no questions about that. Fifth, "the principle of the
16 I am having least English knowledge, my English
17 knowledge is limited to the level I can communicate,
18 that's the level to which I have got communication level.
19 By reading this I have got no idea, and even I have tried
20 this with another 100 of my friends to see if they mean
21 anything else compound interest, and I got an answer no
22 from all the 100 people. There is no clue for them that
23 this is compound interest. I have asked them, next
24 question, by reading this if they get an idea that if
25 they continue to repay the loan to Westpac for over 25
26 years do they get an idea they will end up paying 47 per
27 cent more than what they should pay? Everybody said they
28 have got no idea that is the volume of which they are
29 going to be paying extravagant amount over a period of
30 time. Luckily I have stayed with Westpac only for two
31 years. My, my friends have stayed with many other banks
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 13 IYER XN
1 for many years and I am not here to talk about that part.
2 I am talking only about my loan document and when I see
3 this I find I have been duped.
4 Are you saying that you didn't understand that the monthly
5 payments you would be paying on your loan were as high as
6 they were?---I knew the monthly.
7 You knew how much you would be paying?---I knew because - - -
8 How much was it you were going to be paying on the
9 mortgage?---I had have been told that I will be paying
10 about 800 and odd dollars, $800(?) that's what I've been
11 told and whenever I found people going for a loan all
12 they check are only two things. One, everybody wants to
13 know whether the amount of repayment that is being told
14 by the bank is within their capability to pay that.
15 Second they would like to see the interest rate that is
16 being quoted by the bank is marginally better than
17 another bank. That is how, at least the people I deal
18 with, they have chosen their lenders.
19 Is there anything else that you want to draw my attention to in
20 these documents?---The front page of this document says
21 "If there is any inconsistency the letter prevails."
22 Bank of Melbourne has committed me, by this sentence,
23 that if I find this is not matching with what they have
24 quoted there as per annum, which to me means simple
25 interest, they are saying to me if there is a discrepancy
26 between the two, they want me to take up the letter of
27 offer as the one that prevails over "You and your loan."
28 On that basis I have requested Westpac to work out
29 (indistinct)(3.04.20) simple interest and pay me the
30 difference. I have been dealt with in a very harsh,
31 unruly manner that forced me to try pay everywhere and
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 14 IYER XN
1 then finally land up in front of you. That is all I have
2 got to say.
3 HER HONOUR: Thank you, stay in the witness box. Mr Strong
4 will ask you some questions.
5 <CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR STRONG:
6 What are you academic qualifications?---My academic
7 qualifications? Is this a relevant question I need to
8 answer, Your Honour?
9 HER HONOUR: Well you have told me you are an accountant. Is
10 there some qualifications you have to be an
11 accountant?---At the moment I'm a CPA.
12 That is not an academic qualification?---Academic qualification
13 - I have got a post graduation in commerce, post
14 graduation in education. I have got a post graduation in
15 personnel personal management.
16 MR STRONG: So you are a certified practising accountant?---I'm
17 a certified practising accountant, currently.
18 What was your employment position at the time you took out the
19 loan in 1999?---I was working for an accountant.
20 In an accounting firm?---Yes.
21 What is your employment position now?---Is this relevant at all
22 for me to answer your Honour?
23 HER HONOUR: Mr Strong?
24 MR STRONG: I want to establish the groundwork of this because
25 Mr Iyer has put forward to us a number of spreadsheets
26 and other forms of calculation.
27 HER HONOUR: He doesn't look as if he is relying upon them as
28 at now. All I have heard about is an amount of $1,000
29 which I presume is the difference - which he told me is
30 the difference between the calculation on his loan, if it
31 was calculated in accordance with simple interest than
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 15 IYER XN
1 calculated in accordance with what he describes as
2 compound interest.
3 MR STRONG: In order to elucidate elicithow you work that out
4 it will be necessary to go to that document that he
5 hasn't give us yet but he will, to show the calculations,
6 to show what my case will be - to put it very shortly
7 what he is doing is not what he says he is doing at all,
8 it is a different sort of calculation. I don't press the
9 question about his position now but he has put forward
10 some mathematical calculations.
11 HER HONOUR: I won't allow the question about his present
12 employment. He tells me he is a CPA and at the time of
13 the loan was working for an accountant. He tells me he
14 has academic qualifications in commerce, education and
15 personnel personal management.
16 MR STRONG: You had some negotiations did you with a builder to
17 buy a block of land back in '99, is that what you
18 said?---That was not really relating to my claim with
19 Westpac. I was only mentioning the circumstances. In
20 other words I was trying to mention that I didn't go to
21 Westpac on my own, but through the builder.
22 I understand that but the property you wanted to purchase, that
23 you wanted the bank to provide a loan for, was the
24 property being sold to you by a builder, was it?---Yes.
25 The idea was you would build a house on that land, is that
27 Did the builder introduce you to Westpac?---Yes.
28 Did he introduce you to a man called Tom Smith?---He didn't
29 introduce, he took all my application, everything has
30 been processed by my builder, I never went to the bank at
31 all. The very first time I have ever gone to the bank
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 16 IYER XXN
1 was when I got the call on 7 October from Tom - I forgot
2 the surname.
3 Tom Smith?---Yes, we had a call and that's the first time we
4 met Tom, only on 11 October. Prior to that I have never
5 - in fact on 11 October I had to search for the bank.
6 You actually met someone called Anne Kermin(?) that morning,
7 did you not?---No.
8 No?---No, I never met anybody from the bank at all.
9 On 11 October?---Only on the 11th I must have met Anne for
10 signing the document, yes.
11 You said in your evidence that you sat down and she showed you
12 the documents and you saw where you were to sign them and
13 you said you asked if they were standard documents and
14 you were told that they were. You said that you trusted
15 Westpac, that they would have no reason to put anything
16 special in the documents against you, is that what you
18 How long after you signed the documents did you first draw down
19 money on your loan?---I think on the 22nd or 12th
20 of October. I think it is the first draw down that has
21 been done, not having that in front of me, I don't want
22 to move from here, but you have got the document.
23 If I suggest to you it was 22 October?---Yes.
24 That would be right wouldn't it?---22nd of October would be
26 Yes, so there was some 11 days after you signed the documents
27 before you actually drew down any money on this loan, is
28 that right?---Yes.
29 Now, when you finished signing the documents you took the copy
30 of the letter that you gave Her Honour before dated the
31 7th and a copy of this booklet, the "You and your loan"
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 17 IYER XXN
1 document, away with you on the 11th, did you not?---Yes.
2 You did. I take it from the evidence that what you say is you
3 didn't read this document on the day you signed the
4 loan?---I never said I didn't read the document ever. I
5 said that on the day when I signed in the branch I had
6 only 15 minutes so I didn't read it then.
7 That is what I put to you, you didn't read it then.
8 HER HONOUR: In case there is later a transcript - when you say
9 "this" document.
10 MR STRONG: I beg your pardon. I am referring to "You and your
11 loan" brochure.
12 HER HONOUR: "You and your loan brochure." Yes, thank you.
13 MR STRONG: Did you read it in the subsequent 11 days?---I have
14 read for rest of my time until September 2006. , until
15 Till that time I could never understand that any of those
16 terms you have got means compounding monthly.
17 When did you first read the "You and your Loan" document?---On
18 the same day., I have been an academic. Every time when
19 I deal with a situation as an academic, as a teacher, we
20 tend to read immediately what we have got to deal with.
21 All right, so you didn't read the document at the bank but you
22 read it later that day?---Later that day I read, before
23 even applying for the first draw-down
24 (indistinct)(3.11.30) I read the document.
25 Thank you. Now, could you open the document at page 9
26 please?---I didn't register your name?
27 My name is Strong?---Strong.
28 Now go to page 9 of the document "You and your Loan"?---Yes I
29 am on page 9.
30 Can you see under heading 7 the words "Interest on your
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 18 IYER XXN
1 Then "Calculation of interest."?---Yes.
2 I take it you read this back on 11 October 1999?---Yes.
3 Yes and you can see what it says there, can't you?---I never
4 denied that I can read,. I can definitely read, I can
5 definitely understand what it says in English but what I
6 mention is that doesn't make me understand in any way it
7 is interest compounding monthly. That is my claim.
8 Yes, well never mind the interest compounding monthly. Can we
9 just agree on what this does say?---It says "We will
10 charge interest at the end of each day by multiplying the
11 total of outstanding principle and any unpaid interest
12 debited to the loan account by an annual percentage rate
13 and dividing the result by 365."
14 Yes?---It doesn't - - -
15 You have done a number of spreadsheets, have you not, in which
16 you have performed calculations exactly like that?---I
17 did in 2006, September. Not at the time when I took the
19 Just attend to my questions please. That makes it very clear,
20 does it not, that the amount on which interest can be
21 charged can include an amount of unpaid
22 interest?---Outstanding principle and any unpaid interest
23 debited to the loan. So it means to me that unpaid
24 interest well be debited to the loan which doesn't mean
25 it's compounding.
26 Never mind the word "compounding", we can come to that later.
27 I just want you to attend to the question I have asked
28 you. It is very clear, is it not, from these words that
29 the amount on which interest would be charged at any day
30 could include unpaid interest that has been debited to
31 the loan account?---To me it doesn't.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 19 IYER XXN
1 Mr Iyer, isn't it there in plain English in front of
3 Isn't thatit there in plain English in front of you?---It is
5 That the amount on which interest is charged could include
6 unpaid interest which has been debited to the
7 account?---That's exactly what I'm saying. It is not
8 clear to me that interest is getting calculated on
9 interest. I don't understand that part of it.
10 Now, when you came to do your calculations in 2006 you did
11 understand that, didn't you?---In 2006 I understood yes.
12 So you are telling Her Honour that you didn't understand this
13 in 1999?---No.
14 B but you do understand it now?---In 2006 yes.
15 HER HONOUR: I don't want to interrupt too much but I want to
16 be sure.
17 When it says any unpaid interest debited to the loan account am
18 I right in thinking that the $1,000 odd you say you have
19 been overcharged represents times when the monthly
20 payment was paid a little late and so interest was
21 charged on the interest that was already overdue?---No.
22 Is that right?---No, that $1,001 is a hidden compounding
23 interest I calculated. I have never paid amount later,
24 except on two occasions that they have cited, which
25 amounted to $27 and I am not disputing that part of it.
26 Perhaps I will leave that then because that Thatis what I
27 thought the situation was but we will come back to that
28 after Mr Strong has finished asking you questions?---One
29 submission. I never defaulted in repayment so there was
30 no reason I should end up paying compound interest.
31 MR STRONG: Am I right in saying you have said to Her Honour
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 20 IYER XXN
1 that you are not complaining about any occasion on which
2 the bank has actually charged interest on interest?---I'm
3 saying if I have defaulted the payment I think the bank
4 has got a right to charge interest on interest because
5 when any person who is a borrower defaults in their
6 payment, I think the lender has got a legitimate right to
7 take interest on that unpaid amount.
8 Yes?---Here I am, I never defaulted on anything.
9 You talked about being under certain pressure at the time you
10 signed the documents and you said the pressure was from
11 the builder who wanted to know whether your loan had been
12 approved, is that right?---The pressure was first of all
13 the builder wanted to know that my loan is taken out, but
14 that was not the one that was giving pressure for me to
15 sign the document. It is only Anne, when we went there
16 she had only 15 minutes to sign the document. That was
17 the pressure I refer to.
18 Have a look at the loan offer at the , on the page on which you
19 signed it, which is page 7?---Yes.
20 Now you see the words, "Things you must know."?---Yes.
21 Did you read that at the time you signed this document?---I
22 mentioned this, I hadve not read before signing.
23 You didn't read any of it?---I had not been pointed out to this
24 that I have to know this. Currently as an accountant I
25 know - - -
26 I am just asking you about the words, the dot points under the
27 heading, "Things you must know." Now, is it your
28 evidence that you didn't read that before you signed the
29 document?---I don't have evidence that I didn't read.
30 No, are you saying you didn't read that before you
31 signed?---Before signing I didn't read.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 21 IYER XXN
1 Yes but you did read it later that day?---Yes.
2 So you knew, didn't you, that if you were unhappy with any of
3 these conditions you could have gone back to the bank and
4 cancelled the loan?---Sure, yes.
5 Having read the documents you went ahead and authorised the
6 first draw down?---I was very happy with Westpac, I'm
7 making my dream come true to have a home.
8 You say you have got your bank statements there?---Yes.
9 Now you received those bank statements regularly?---I don't
10 know why, I got the second set photocopied and sent out
11 to me when I already had original in my file intact.
12 Never mind about that. You did get them regularly at the time
13 during the period of your loan(3.19.10) and no doubt you
14 cast your eyes over them from time to time?---I have.
15 You saw the fact that the bank was charging interest every
16 month?---I have seen the interest debited every month.
17 You saw, didn't you, that the bank was charging interest and
18 adding that to the loan balance on the 22nd, or nearest
19 day, every month, is that not right?---Mr Strong, that's
20 what I'm pointing here. I can only see a bank statement
21 as whether my repayments have gone through correctly,
22 whether you people are charging interest, that's all I
23 see. I don't see - - -
24 Well have a look at your bank statement. I hand up a set to
25 Your Honour. I want you to look at the bank statements
26 Mr Iyer. Now, just turn the pages as I ask you the
27 questions. You will see on the second page of the
28 statements there is the recording of the initial draw
29 down of your loan of $51,225.77?---Yes.
30 Then if you turn over two more pages you get to the details of
31 the next month's transactions?---Yes.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 22 IYER XXN
1 There you see that the bank debited your account with interest
2 of $284.95?---Yes.
3 You paid $285.13 on that day?---Yes.
4 Now, if you go through, and I would like you to turn over to
5 about the period starting in May 2000, if you could find
6 those pages. You can check by the dates. Tell me when
7 you have found the statement for the period 8 May to
8 8 June 2000?---Yes, that's the statement number 8 there.
9 You have got that. Now, at this stage you were paying
10 fortnightly, weren't you?---Looks like that.
11 Yes, and it happened, didn't it, that from time to time your
12 payments didn't coincide with the date at which interest
13 was paid?---I never check on what date the bank is
14 charging interest. I only know that my repayments are
15 going because I trusted the bank to be doing the
16 calculation of interest appropriately, I thought they
17 would plan everything on the right time.
18 I am asking you though when you looked at your statements you
19 would have seen, would you not, that the dates of your
20 payments were not necessarily, or frequently were not,
21 the exact date of interest charged?---It doesn't match.
22 Yes it doesn't match.
23 Yes, that's right, and when that happened the interest was
24 added to the balance, wasn't it. You can see that on
25 statement number 8?---I never did this addition and
26 subtraction to see what is added and what is subtracted
27 in the balance.
28 You didn't?---No.
30 HER HONOUR: Are you looking at that 19 May entry of 29 cents?
31 MR STRONG: No that's FID, the next one, 22 May, "interest
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 23 IYER XXN
2 HER HONOUR: I see that as being a different date than the
3 deposit of $482.31. Is that what you are referring to?
4 MR STRONG: Yes, and what I am putting to him is that it is
5 apparent from this that the $930.13 has been added to the
6 balance on that day.
7 HER HONOUR: I see yes.
8 MR STRONG: Now, it is the case, isn't it, that whether you
9 looked at it or not, every month the bank statements
10 showed you that when interest was charged to the account
11 unless there was a payment on the same day the amount of
12 the interest was added to the balance?---When I
13 got et - - -
14 No, answer my questions. Whether you looked at it or not, you
15 agree with me that is what the bank statements said?---I
16 didn't know at that time.
17 I did not ask you that. Just listen to the question. You
18 agree with me that whether you knew it at the time or
19 not, that is what they in fact said. That is what the
20 bank statement was telling you?---Now I understand.
21 Now you know it, you say you didn't know it then?---Yes.
22 Now, could I ask you to produce for Her Honour the revised
23 calculation in which you came up with $1,001.89?---I had
24 to give you a copy.
25 HER HONOUR: Is there only one copy.
26 MR STRONG: I think he has got more.
27 MR IYER: They told me that I have paid $1,500 more but when I
28 did the calculation - - -
29 HER HONOUR: Is that the only copy of that or are there more.
30 Go to the Bbar table and obtain the other copies?---This
31 is the total interest - - -
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 24 IYER XXN
1 .You will have a chance to explain the documents. All I want to
2 do is have them distributed at the moment.
3 WITNESS: Mr Strong, do you want me to explain what I did
5 MR STRONG: Yes, Mr Iyer. Please explain what you have
6 done?---MR STRONG: Please explain what you have done
7 here?Okay, I have printed with insufficient space on the
8 printer, that's why all those hash coming out without
9 number thing, but the relevant numbers are seen in column
10 C, column D and column E. Column C, D and E are exactly
11 a replica of what is there in the bank statement, 29
12 statements. I have just copied exactly whatever you
13 have, I have not verified the bank's calculation there.
14 Next column, column F I have just taken only the interest
15 that is in column C. For convenience I have added all of
16 them (indistinct) (3.26) and have drawn number 7 in
17 column F for $20,235.80 as the total interest the bank
18 had debited in my account. I have gone to column G to
19 include the interest fluctuation, the interest
20 fluctuation that has been - the market fluctuation advice
21 now and then by the bank. Again I am sorry a couple of
22 the dates are not very clear there but the rest of the
23 dates are clear and the percentage that has been advised
24 is clear. In column A I have calculated the outstanding
25 money that has been lent me. In other words the analysis
26 here I have done is actual cash that has been lent by
27 Westpac to me. Out of the cash that is lent to me I have
28 refunded on different dates, you can see in column B I
29 have repaid certain amount of money. I consider my money
30 brings the same 100 cents per dollar as Westpac money
31 would bring (indistinct)(3.27) so I was offsetting the
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 25 IYER XXN
1 money that has been lent to me with the money that I
2 repaid to Westpac. On that basis I have derived the
3 outstanding balance at different dates (indistinct)
4 there. I have calculated the number of days from the day
5 on which I have made the repayment, from the date on
6 which the bank has lent to me, to forthe date on which I
7 made repayment I have calculated a number of days because
8 the bank calculates interest on daily balances. So I
9 calculated the number of days by a formula and in column
10 KA I have calculated the interest. You can see the first
11 interest is $284.97 is what I have arrived at with what
12 Westpac has calculated as $284.96 because the . The
13 characteristic of simple and compound interest is -
14 simple interest and compound interest, in andthe very
15 first one they both bring the same result. It's only
16 from the second month one onwards thate interest will be
17 less if it is simple interest. That's why I've gone
18 ahead and projected for the entire period on the same
19 concept and the total that you see on column K, row
20 number 7, column K, shows I should have paid $19,233.91.
21 That's what I should have paid but what the bank had
22 debited is $20,235.80. It is - with regret I have to say
23 that in spite of me bringing this to VCATVCAT, when the
24 bank was has sent the discrepancy I don't know why they
25 have shown that I have paid $1,500 when I have not paid.
26 I am saying I have paid $1,001. So in spite of this case
27 coming to the court Westpac has shown negligence in terms
28 of doing the calculation and bringing it to tell the
29 customer what they have done. Here I am, I don't want to
30 take your money one cent extra. That's why I'm saying I
31 will take only $1,001.89.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 26 IYER XXN
1 Now, could you just clarify this for me?---Yes.
2 The way in which you have calculated column K?---Yes.
3 Assumes that every payment you made comes off the principle of
4 the loan?---No, I assume as I mentioned in the course of
5 my discussion, I mentioned my $1 brings the same
6 100 cents and it is a legal tender and I rely that it has
7 got the same properties is (indistinct)(3.28.40) as the
8 money when it comes from Westpac.this bank.
9 Can I put this another way. Your calculations in column I,
10 reduce the amount outstanding in each case by the
11 deposits that you have made in column D, is that
12 right?---That's right.
13 So I suggest to you that what I said before is correct, you
14 have done this calculation on the basis that all of the
15 money that you've paid over the period of two years and
16 five months before the loan was paid out, is to come off
17 the amount owing?---Mr Strong it can be your
18 interpretation but I have to insist that I have only done
19 the calculation as the legal tender and it is coming from
20 you, from your bank, it has got that's got the same
21 properties as the legal tender when it is going from me
22 to your bank. So it has to be offset with each other and
23 that's how the interest would be is calculated.
24 Now, despite that answer is it not the case that, for example,
25 the figure at I13, $50,940.64?---Yes.
26 Represents the figure immediately above it less the
27 $285.13?---That is correct.
28 That is the same for every one of those deposits?---That is the
29 reason why it goes only on those rows where there is a
30 deposit entry.
31 Yes, now is it not the result of that, that no amount of
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 27 IYER XXN
1 interest is paid on this loan until the final
2 repayment?---I'm not sure about the impact, I can only
3 see I am giving cash and you are giving cash. I can see
4 only that portion.
5 You are not attending to my question. I am asking you is it
6 the consequence of your method of calculation that there
7 is no interest payable until the loan is repaid?---I'm
8 not sure whether that's the consequence. I think you
9 people have got resource enough to identify what is the
10 reason why there (indistinct)(3.31.40) that is a
11 difference. All I can tell you is what I have done in
12 the plain English manner that I believe the money that I
13 have received has got the same legal properties as the
14 money I returned back to Westpac.
15 HER HONOUR: I don't understand that. So perhaps you can just
16 answer Mr Strong's question. How was that calculation
17 done?---The calculation is done on the basis that the
18 money lent minus the money that I repaid, y, on that I
19 calculated the interest. On the balance I calculated the
20 interest, assuming the deposit that I madeke back has the
21 same interest claim as when they lent it to
23 MR STRONG: When do you assume that you pay the interest?---I
24 have to pay interest at the time when I have to quit the
25 loan or when I have repayments. I have to pay off all
26 the loan I am owing as interest because whenever I have
27 gone anywhere I hire a car or when I go for Telstra
28 telephone expenses, or whatever, they provide the service
29 first and they take the payment - - -
30 So you agree with me, don't you, that in this document, the
31 spreadsheet of your calculations, there is no interest
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 28 IYER XXN
1 paid to the bank before the date on which the loan is
2 repaid?---The bank is entitled to interest, I am not
3 refusing that the bank is entitled to interest, but in
4 that assumption I have assumed the money that I return is
5 the money that I'm paying back, the principle.
6 My proposition is correct, isn't it, there is no interest
7 payable on this spreadsheet until the end of the
8 loan?---Yes, in March when it is paid.
9 You pay all the interest?---All the interest is paid off, yes.
10 You agree, don't you, that the terms on which the bank lent you
11 the money was that you would have to pay the interest
12 every month?---No, I have opted for a principle and
13 interest loan. If that was the case I would have opted
14 for interest only option.
15 Could you have a look at the loan offer document again. Can
16 you see where it says "repayments" at the bottom of
17 page 1?---Yes. , Iit says "After the date you first draw
18 this loan until this loan is fully drawn you will pay on
19 each payment due date the amount specified as due on that
20 date in the written notice given to you by the lender."
21 Yes?---I never received any statement from the bank saying this
22 is the loan due, pay now. I never received any of this.
23 We will come back to that. Now look on the second page where
24 it says "Payment due date" in the box with those words on
25 the left?---"Payments are due monthly on each payment due
26 date". Yes, I have been told I have to make a monthly
27 repayment and I have been told I am making a principle
28 and interest loan, an interest loan, interest - - -
29 Yes, look at the top of page 2?---Yes.
30 Where it sets out what the payment due date will be?---"The
31 billing statement is written on the date 14 days before
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 29 IYER XXN
1 the payment due date. It will be interest for the period
2 from and including the previous payment due date and
3 including the calculation date. In the case of the first
4 billing statement from the date your loan account is open
5 to and including calculation date, the estimated interest
6 for the period" - - -
7 That is enough, you don't need to read any more. That told you
8 very clearly, didn't it, that interest would be included
9 in every monthly payment?---Mr Strong even now I don't
10 understand what that means here. At this stage I am not
11 able to understand what it says.
12 It is very convenient, isn't it, that whenever a difficult
13 question pops up you plead you can't understand the
14 language of this document?---I object to your statement,
15 you are calling me a liar.
16 I am suggesting to you that a person of your qualifications and
17 experience wouldn't have any difficulty in understanding
18 these matters?---And you come here and - - -
19 HER HONOUR: Mr Iyer, all I ask you to do is listen Listen to
20 the questions and answer them. If you can answer yes or
21 no that is the best way to do it. If you need to explain
22 then wait until the question is finished before you
24 MR STRONG: I am suggesting to you, Mr Iyer, I will put it
25 again. I am suggesting that a person with your
26 qualifications in accountancy and your experience, and in
27 fact your job at the time you entered into this loan as
28 an accountant working in a public accountant's office, a
29 person of your experience and qualifications would have
30 no difficulty in understanding the concepts that are
31 explained in this document?---No, because I was changing
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 30 IYER XXN
1 my career from being a teacher to an accountant for the
2 first time when I signed this. I was not even three
3 there months old as an accountant. Before that I was not
4 an accountant, I was only a teacher.
5 A teacher of what?---Teacher of computing and teacher ing of
6 Australian law and teacher of accounting.
7 Thank you, now coming back to your calculation sheet where you
8 worked out the $1,000. It is your notion of simple
9 interest, isn't it, that it is interest calculated on the
10 reducing principle but payable at the end of the loan
11 term?---That's all I have been taught Mr Strong.
12 That is what you have been taught. So, you would deny would
13 you that the idea of simple interest would include
14 interest which was calculated at the same rate but was
15 payable monthly?---I have not been taught that way, that
16 there is a calculation like that, unless there is a new
17 method that has been invented by Westpac., I haven't
18 learned that.
19 It would be the case though would it not, that in the absence
20 of payments of principle interest payable monthly and
21 interest payable annually would be the same?---Could you
22 repeat that please?
23 If you have a loan where there is no reduction of
25 And on one loan interest is payable at 6 per cent, payable
26 monthly, and on the other it is 6 per cent payable at the
27 end of the year, the amount of interest will be the same
28 won't it?---No.
29 Yes it will?---No, because you have to recognise that the money
30 that is being paid back by the borrower has the same
31 properties as the money that is being lent by the lender.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 31 IYER XXN
1 On that basis the interest calculated on a monthly basis,
2 when a person has been psaying the money back, calculated
3 according to the end of the month balance, at the end of
4 the year will be far different to interest if you
5 calculate straight on the principle that is lent for one
7 Yes and that is a function merely of the agreement between the
8 borrower and the lender, that interest shall be payable
9 monthly, isn't it? That is the consequence of that?---I
10 had not been told to pay interest monthly. I'd been told
11 to pay principle and interest monthly. I have never been
12 told - I repeat the point again, if that was the case I
13 would have chosen the interest only option which has been
14 offered to me that time and I didn't choose the interest
15 only option because I endeavoured to pay the principle
16 (indistinct) (3.39.50) the principal than paying the
17 interest first.
18 Did that interest only option give you the opportunity to pay
19 no interest at all until the end of two years and five
20 months?---I didn't even consider it. I didn't consider
21 that offer at all.
22 You didn't consider it?---Because I wanted to pay only the
23 principle and interest repayment.
24 You said you finally came to work out the amount the bank had
25 charged you in September 2006. Now, that was four years
26 and a half after you had repaid the loan?---Yes.
27 What was it that happened in about September 2006 that caused
28 you to choose to do thatis?---Is this question at all
29 relevant for me to answer?
30 I am asking it?---You are asking but do I have to answer this?
31 HER HONOUR: I will ask you to answer the question please.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 32 IYER XXN
1 Unless, unless I interrupt Mr Strong you can presume that
2 his questions are relevant.
4 MMR STRONG: So what happened that made you come to do that
5 in September 2006?---I had another loan with another bank
6 and I find that I keep paying the money but my loan
7 amount doesn't keep going down. As I expected it to go
8 down, it doesn't go down. I just wanted to find out what
9 is really happening here, what is going on. Then I sat
10 down, I prepared an Excel spreadsheet. First - I don't
11 know why I took first Westpac, because that's the first
12 company from where I took the loan, because I also
13 transferred the loan so I knew that it is a starting
14 point and end point in that company loan, so I took the
15 bank statements, checked to see whether I can work out
16 how the interest is affecting my loan balance there.
17 Then I found I had to work out how that has been
18 calculated if my assumption of what I understood from the
19 document as simple interest is correct. I went through
20 and I found I ended up when I prepared the Excel sheet
21 for the entire period of 25 years, assuming what would
22 have happened if I'd stayed with Westpac for 25 years I
23 came out with a figure that I would have ended up paying
24 51 per cent more than what I was supposed to be paying.
25 That's the starting point.
26 So you are asking Her Honour to accept that all that time from
27 1999 right through to September 2006 you thought that the
28 bank calculated your interest?---Simple interest.
29 On the basis that you say it should have?---I honestly believe,
30 I sincerely believe, and I have very high regard for
31 Westpac for having given me the loan to make my dream
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 33 IYER XXN
1 come true. So I trusted them very much and I was hurt
2 very much when I found something opposite.
3 But you accept, don't you, that the documents that Westpac
4 provided to you at the time of your loan did state the
5 way in which Westpac was going to calculate the
6 loan?---That's exactly what I'm saying again. I could
7 not comprehend, I cannot understand - - -
8 I am not asking you what you understood. I am asking you what
9 you now understand?---Yes.
10 You now understand that the way in which Westpac described its
11 calculations in those documents is the way that it did in
12 fact calculate the interest?---When I find somebody has
13 taken some money from my pocket, later on they come and
14 say why they took it?
15 No, you are not answering my question. Do you accept that the
16 documents that you signed and took away with you on
17 11 October accurately described the way in which Westpac
18 does in fact calculate its interest?---It doesn't, it
19 doesn't describe what I understood Westpac is doing.
20 I know what you understood. I am asking you now to speak from
21 your present knowledge?---Correct. On the present moment
22 even now I told you I cannot understand that portion that
23 you are talking about on page 2.
24 But you do understand the way in which Westpac calculated the
25 interest?---No I find that Westpac has calculated
26 interest in a compounding way than in simple interest.
27 I understand that, and there is nothing in the documents that
28 is different from the way in which Westpac has actually
29 calculated the interest, is there?---I repeat again, I
30 can't still understand that is the way it is done because
31 of the fact I still don't understand what is on page 2.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 34 IYER XXN
1 MR STRONG: I have no further questions.
2 HER HONOUR: The loan offer document, there is a paragraph that
3 starts "repayments." There is a paragraph you have been
4 taken to that starts "repayments" and on the next page
5 there are five dot points. Now, which of those dot
6 points don't you understand?---The first dot point says
7 that they wanted me to start - but I don't know what is
8 there to start. Like when I read the entire paragraph I
9 really cannot comprehend what that whole paragraph means
11 So you don't understand any of those dot points?---Well I don't
12 have the ability to comprehend that it means compounding.
13 I am not interested in what it is called, it can be called
14 anything, but what is it in those paragraphs that you
15 don't understand?---The way that they are saying how they
16 will calculate the first billing statement and the
17 calculation date. There is no calendar that has been
18 given to me as a calculation date and there is no
19 estimated interest that has been told to me as estimated
20 interest. It says about ongoing amounts - I don't
21 understand what that ongoing amounts means.
22 Are there any other matters you want to put to me arising out
23 of the things that you have been asked by
24 Mr Strong?---Sorry, can you please repeat that?
25 Are there any other matters that you want me to take into
26 account in making my decision today?---Yes, the fact that
27 the document not clear for me to understand in the
28 beginning and this mention that in 2006 September, that's
29 four years after I repaid the loan, I am in front of you
30 trying to explain this, if this has been done before I
31 signed the loan document I don't think I had to spend any
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 35 IYER XXN
1 time to waste your time or my time or their time.
2 All right, can I perhaps just ask you this. Just to make this
3 quite clear - you have set out in some earlier documents
4 on the file a claim which you had for several different
5 sums of money. Are you still pursuing those claims or is
6 it just the $1,001.89?---I pursue all the claims that I
7 mention in the five page document I have sent as a
9 Perhaps you could go through with me those amounts?---On page
11 What is the date of that - right, well I can't see there any
12 amounts?---On page 3.
13 Page 3, all right. So are you still pursuing these
14 amounts?---I can probably point out to you that on page
15 3, first the sentence up to 51.314 per cent, up to that
16 much, can be substituted with $1,001.89.
17 So, instead of $20,331.34 the amount there should be
18 $1,001.89?---No, $20,331.34 is the total interest I paid.
19 Yes?---But I have calculated - on that I multiplied 51.31 per
20 cent which was an average percentage I worked out, which
21 was wrong and that should not be $10,432.89, that should
22 be exact amount as how much I paid more in those two
23 years' time, which is $1,001.89.
24 So instead of $10,432.89?---Yes, it should be $1,001.89.
25 So it is $1001.89 cents. You said that it was a joint loan
26 with your wife?---Yes.
27 Is your wife here today?---She is waiting outside.
28 Do you have her authority to claim that amount on her
30 You say legal costs in bringing this matter before you,
31 $553.60. How have you worked that out?---That's what I
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 36 IYER XXN
1 pay to VCAT.
2 To?---VCAT, the Tribunal.
3 So that is payments of fees to VCAT?---To the Tribunal yes.
4 All right, now how do you justify the balance of the sum? Are
5 you still claiming this compensation?---Yes.
6 For the torture, trouble and turmoil?---Yes.
7 How do you claim that?---During the period of this repayment of
8 loan I have gone through so many different difficulties
9 in my life which I don't want to mention here. They are
10 a private part of my life, but it had the potential to
11 cost so much of a person's life. I never worried about
12 any of those, I committed to paying the monthly repayment
13 I paid, and in 2006 September when I work out I find that
14 even $230 for water when I had to pay, I had difficulty
15 to pay once upon a time, and I find it's because of the
16 error the bank has been committing and has not been
17 disclosed and the amount of skill that is required even
18 now at this stage, I have spoken to hundreds of people
19 and they cannot understand that the bank is charging
20 compound interest.
21 If I might just interrupt you there. You say you were charged
22 $1000-odd more over that period of two years?---Correct.
23 You are claiming $1 billion in general damages?---Yes - - -
24 You think that makes sense?---In terms of the skill level that
25 is required to bring it to your attention to make things
26 clear, I don't think today there is anybody on the street
27 who can bring this clear to this court or any other court
28 in a clear manner to make a person understand there is a
29 hidden message in their contract of compound interest.
30 They are not clear, they are not straightforward. They
31 are having false, misleading and deceptive conduct.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 37 IYER XXN
1 Is there anything else you want to say to me as to how that
2 claim is calculated. Any other matters you want to rely
3 upon in relation to that claim?---In terms of the number
4 of such cases, the number of people affected, the amount
5 of impact to the society and everything added together,
6 since I brought this to light, since I brought it to the
7 attention of the court I believe I am worthy of making it
9 HER HONOUR: Is there anything arising out of that Mr Strong?
10 MR STRONG: No your Honour, but in answer to an earlier
11 question of your Honour's he said he was still pursuing
12 all the matters on page 2 of his 1 March document. I
13 didn't take him to item 2 of the claim because he didn't
14 give any evidence about compliance with the
15 mandatory - - -
16 HER HONOUR: This is a case about Mr Iyer and what he has lost,
17 it is not a case about the general community or anyone
18 else in the community who may have entered into some
19 contracts with Westpac of various kinds so I would
20 perhaps indicate that I am not going to see as relevant
21 any evidence about non-compliance with mandatory
22 comparison rate legislation unless it impacts on this
24 There are no issues on page 2 that you want to give evidence
25 about?---Yes, even now when I want to buy another
26 property I want to look at the interest rate quoted by a
27 different bank and the mandatory comparison rate that is
28 quoted still doesn't incorporate the cost of the loan
29 which is including the compounding rate so it is still
30 misleading a person to go ahead and sign a loan agreement
31 so that is what I brought under section 9 of the
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 38 IYER XXN
1 statutory Act.
2 HER HONOUR: Yes?---It has got a likely potential to mislead a
3 person still.
4 MR STRONG: Mr Iyer, do you base the assertion that the current
5 advertisement of mandatory comparison rates doesn't
6 reflect the true cost of the loan on calculations of the
7 kind that you did for your own loan?---Yes, it doesn't
8 reflect correctly the rate.
9 So those are the calculations in which you have done sample
10 loans of different amounts and different periods and you
11 have worked out the difference between the rate quoted by
12 the bank and the true rate if the interest was all
13 postponed until the end of the loan period?---Can you
14 repeat that please, my concentration has - - -
15 You have done calculations, like the one that we discussed
16 earlier, for different amounts and different
18 Different loans?---Yes.
19 Based on the proposition that the interest is not to be payable
20 until the end of the loan?---That's not the proposition I
21 had. I had the assumption that my money has got the same
22 properties as your money has got and on that basis I
23 offset the money I paid in terms of the money that you
25 Yes and that means that all the money you paid should be taken
26 off what you owe?---Yes.
27 And then when you repay the loan you can repay the interest at
28 that time?---Yes.
29 That's right. Now can you have a look please at this document.
30 I have given you an extract from the Consumer Credit
31 Regulations and it is Regulation 33F. Do you see
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 39 IYER XXN
2 Could you have a look at page 39 starting with the letter 3,
3 "the comparison rate is given by the following
5 Do you see the formula there?---Yes.
6 Do you see the way in which the elements of that formula are
7 defined?---Do you think I understand any of the formula?
8 I am asking you first, do you see that NRJTAJ, all that and so
10 When did you first see that formula?---By the courtesy of
11 Westpac last week on 13 March, that's the first time I
12 have got this. In fact in my discussion with Tim Goss of
13 Westpac on 16 November or whenever I have been informed I
14 have requested him to send only one line of information
15 something like this saying that the bank is charging
16 compound interest as per some legislation, that is all I
18 Never mind your conversation with Mr Goss. You have told Her
19 Honour that the first time you saw this formula was last
20 week, is that right?---On 13 March yes.
21 So none of the calculations that you made for the purposes of
22 your assertion that the bank isn't complying with the
23 mandatory comparison rate legislation were made using
24 this formula?---It is still not plain because the
25 legislation says compounding frequency is supposed to be
26 disclosed and I don't see any of your advertisements
27 disclosing compounding frequency as compounding monthly,
28 compounding quarterly, compounding half yearly or
29 compounding annually. Nothing is being disclosed.
30 I am sorry Mr Iyer, what are you referring to?---33F, ss.2
31 "Comparison rate must be calculated as a nominal rate per
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 40 IYER XXN
1 annum together with the compounding frequency in
2 accordance with the section." The compounding frequency
3 when your frequency is every fortnight, if you compound
4 every fortnight the interest rate is different. If you
5 compound every month the interest rate is different, if
6 you compound every quarter, different, half-yearly
7 different, annually different, in spite of the fact the
8 annual rate you quote is totally different.
9 Yes, now Mr Iyer, you have put forward to the Tribunal the
10 proposition that a particular document that you extracted
11 from Westpac's website - do you know the document to
12 which I refer?---Yes, I think A6 you are talking about.
13 MR STRONG: It is A6 in your bundle. Does your Honour have
15 HER HONOUR: Yes, I think I do yes.
16 MR STRONG: It is a two page document, one is called simple
17 interest compound interest conversion table and the other
18 is a printout from a page on the website?
19 HER HONOUR: Yes.
20 MR STRONG: Now Mr Iyer, you say that on your calculations the
21 comparison rates shown on that website are wrong?---Yes.
22 Yes. But your calculations were not made using the formula in
23 these regulations, were they?---But using the - using the
24 information - - -
25 Never mind about that, I am asking you a question. Did you
26 make your calculations using the formula in the
27 regulations?---That part I cannot understand.
28 You can't understand it. So you have no idea whether Westpac's
29 disclosures on the website do or do not comply with that
30 formula, have you?---I know it is not compliant with the
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 41 IYER XXN
1 Never mind that, I am asking you about the formula?---I'm not
3 You don't know, do you?---No.
4 And you couldn't know because you don't understand the
6 MR STRONG: No further questions.
7 <(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)
8 HER HONOUR: Mr Iyer, is there any other evidence.
9 MR IYER: I have a request that if VCAT can seek expert opinion
10 on the Excel projection I have done I am prepared to bear
11 the cost for the Excel projections to show the compound,
12 the alleged situation between compound and simple
13 interest because simple interest is quoted and applied.
14 It has got a certain character and if it is compound
15 interest as long as the term of the loan the actual
16 effective rate is much higher and if the frequency of
17 compounding is very quick the interest rate that results
18 is very high. For a lower term, if we take a loan for
19 five years, it is beneficial to take a loan for five
20 years at a higher rate that is quoted by the bank,
21 compounding monthly, than taking a loan for 25 years,
22 interest rate quoted lower but effective interest rate
23 comes to, compounding comes to the highest rate of
24 interest they are paying. Since I have derived this
25 table based on whatever is there, as in A6, I have
26 provided evidence of one of the authors of a textbook
27 here who says in theory that is what is the impact. In
28 Excel I have proved the theory is correct.
29 HER HONOUR: But Mr Iyer, what I need to decide is whether
30 Westpac owes you any money by reason of the contract that
31 you took out with them. You say you have done
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 42 DISCUSSION
1 calculations and the calculations that you have provided
2 me with are calculations which, if the way you calculate
3 the loan is correct, there is $1,001 difference between
4 what Westpac has charged you and what you say you
6 Now there is no value in an expert coming along because you
7 have done this calculation yourself. The question is
8 whether or not you should be entitled to make this
9 calculation given that the written documents you have
10 signed with Westpac refer to the calculation being made
11 in another way. There is no expert evidence that is
12 going to help me determine that. Are there any other
13 matters you want to put or any other evidence you want to
14 bring to my attention?
15 MR IYER: Not that I can think of, offhand.
16 HER HONOUR: Mr Strong.
17 MR STRONG: Your Honour Mr Iyer bases his claim on the
18 proposition that at the time that he entered into his
19 loan contract with Westpac he was under a misapprehension
20 as to the way in which Westpac would calculate interest
21 and that he believed, contrary to the terms of the
22 document, that interest on his loan would be payable
23 calculated on the declining balance of principle to which
24 all his monthly payments would be applied, and payable
25 once he had paid off the principle.
26 There is nothing in Westpac's documents which would
27 have induced such a belief in him. The only thing he
28 could say is that there was an omission from Westpac's
29 documents such that he should have been but wasn't
30 disabused of this particular notion.
31 Our first submission is that the loan offer letter
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 43 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 and the "You and Your Loan" terms and conditions booklet
2 do make it abundantly clear that interest on the loan
3 will be charged on daily balances and debited to the
4 account monthly and that payments to the account would be
5 applied to any unpaid interest before the principle is
6 reduced. The question is whether if Mr Iyer was not
7 disabused of his different idea by these documents,
8 whether Westpac is to be held responsible for that,
9 because it could only be if Westpac was responsible for
10 that, that there could be any suggestion of either
11 misleading or deceptive or unconscionable conduct.
12 Mr Iyer says that he read these documents on the day
13 that he got them, even if not before he signed them, and
14 he acknowledged as was pointed out in the loan offer
15 letter at page 7 that he could have withdrawn from the
16 loan contract at any time up to the first draw down which
17 took place 11 days later. He acknowledged that he was
18 happy with the documents and wanted to go ahead but he
19 says here that he didn't understand them. In my
20 submission your Honour should have considerable
21 reservations in accepting that his level of understanding
22 or lack of it was as he has said today. It seems quite
23 extraordinary that a person who had, up to three months
24 before he had taken the loan, been a person who was
25 teaching subjects such as law and accounting and business
26 management I think he said?
27 HER HONOUR: Personal management.
28 MR STRONG: Personal management, would have the difficulties
29 understanding the quite plain English, even if technical,
30 language of these documents. But even if it is the case
31 that your Honour accepts that he didn't understand these
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 44 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 documents and not understanding them, nevertheless,
2 thought that they were fine then in my submission your
3 Honour could not find that Westpac was guilty of any
4 misleading or deceptive or unconscionable conduct in
5 preparing these documents in the way that it has, putting
6 forward the explanations that it did and expecting that a
7 person who did not understand them when they read them
8 would either get advice or raise the question, but
9 otherwise expecting that as best that could be done the
10 matter has been plainly and clearly explained to the
12 It is quite true, as the bank officer said when the
13 documents were signed, that these were standard terms.
14 Mr Iyer accepted them as such, he read them after he
15 signed them and he could have come back and complained or
16 said he didn't understand them. He did none of those
17 things and the bank, in my submission, is not to be held
18 responsible if you accept that he didn't.
19 The second submission is that Mr Iyer has not even
20 demonstrated that the $1,000 is actually a loss. What he
21 said was that if he had known about the way in which the
22 bank would calculate the interest he wouldn't have gone
23 ahead with this loan, he would have postponed purchasing
24 the property and building a house and saved up a bigger
25 deposit. Well, he has to show that he is worse off for
26 having gone ahead and bought the property in 1999 and
27 sold it in 2002 compared with whatever else he was going
28 to do. It is not a case where he took the loan on the
29 terms offered by Westpac where he has given evidence that
30 he could have got a loan on the terms that he likes from
31 somewhere else so we submit that in terms of the High
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 45 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 Court's decision in Marks v GIO which deals with the
2 distinction between actual and expectation losses, and to
3 which attention we drew to Mr Iyer in a letter last week,
4 he has not established even that the $1,000 is a loss.
5 His claim for costs will fall to be decided if and
6 when we have an argument whereby he applies for his
7 costs. His claim for exemplary damages can be answered
8 in two short points. The first of them is that this is a
9 proceeding in which he is seeking damages pursuant to
10 section 159 of the Fair Trading Act. Section 159 is the
11 provision, Your Honour, which allows a person who has
12 suffered loss, injury or damage because of a
13 contravention of a provision of the Act to recover the
14 amount of that loss or damage and they can do so in a
15 court or in this Tribunal. Section 159 does not
16 authorise exemplary damages.
17 Can I hand up to your Honour and provide to Mr Iyer
18 some authorities. I don't want to go in detail to the
19 authorities but I just want to point to - No. 6 is the
20 decision of Justice Wilcox in the Federal Court in Nixon
21 v Phillip Morris Australia and at paragraphs 99 to 103
22 His Honour deals with a submission that exemplary damages
23 are not recoverable under sections 82 or 87 of the Trade
24 Practices Act. Those two sections are the equivalent of
25 159 and 158 of the Fair Trading Act. At 103 his Honour
26 concludes, "I accept it may be possible in an appropriate
27 case to recover aggravated damages as loss or damage
28 within the meaning of section 82 or 87, however it seems
29 to me clear that exemplary damages cannot fall into that
30 category. I am of the opinion that in the present case
31 it is not open to any of the applicants or group members
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 46 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 to recover exemplary damages in relation to any
2 contravention of section 52 that they may prove."
3 Then at tab 7 there is the decision of the New South
4 Wales Court of Appeal in a case called Harris v Digital
5 Pulse. It is a very long decision, we probably didn't
6 need to copy it all. This is a case in which the Court
7 of Appeal delivered a unanimous judgement rejecting the
8 proposition that - well a majority judgement perhaps -
9 rejecting the proposition that there could be exemplary
10 damages for a breach of fiduciary duty and at page 334 of
11 the report at paragraph 186 it says, "The Trade Practices
12 Act provides no analogy because punitive remedies are
13 excluded by the terms of section 82" and they cite the
14 amount of the loss and damage and, "Section 87 compensate
15 for or prevent or reduce loss and damage" and they cite
16 Nixon v Phillip Morris Australia as authority for that.
17 That is, I think, Justice Heydon speaking in that
18 particular - no, President Mason.
19 The language of sections 159 and 158 is relevantly
20 similar to the Trade Practices Act. Section 159 refers
21 to recovering the amount of the loss or damage. Section
22 158 refers to an order that the defendant pay the amount
23 of any loss or damage suffered by the injured person.
24 That is sub-paragraph 2(e).
25 The second point to make is that in my submission
26 section 108 of the Fair Trading Act which gives the
27 Tribunal the power to hear and determine a consumer and
28 trader dispute doesn't have the effect that the Tribunal
29 is in a different position to the court and can award
30 exemplary damages. It is true that exemplary damages are
31 referred to specifically in 2B(2), however in my
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 47 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 submission sub-s.(2) is a series of powers in aid of the
2 jurisdiction conferred by sub-s.(1) and the Tribunal is
3 to hear and determine a consumer and trader dispute under
4 sub-s.(1) according to law. It is only where the
5 underlying rights, legal rights and liabilities of the
6 parties give rise to a right to a right to exemplary
7 damages that the Tribunal's power to award them is,
8 effectively, enlivened.
9 There is some debate amongst members of the
10 Tribunal, Your Honour, about to what extent the Tribunal
11 is found to herein determine its disputes according to
12 the law. I have given your Honour a couple of
13 references. There is a decision of the learned
14 President, Justice Morris, at tab 13 in which he suggests
15 that perhaps the Tribunal is not required to hear and
16 determine disputes according to law. That is in the
17 second volume of authorities. The relevant passage is
18 from 33 to 41 and his Honour at 41 says, "Sections 108
19 and 109 seek to overlay the common law and actions based
20 on contravention of statute with substantive principles
21 based on fairness pursuant to which certain disputes may
22 be resolved." In my submission his Honour intends by
23 that to say that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under
24 section 108 is otherwise than to hear and determine
25 disputes according to law and we respectfully disagree
26 with him.
27 It is true that 109 explicitly gives the Tribunal
28 power similar to section 158 to adjust legal rights by
29 varying a contract for example but the indications we
30 would suggest are that when you look at the definition of
31 consumer and trader dispute at section 107(2) it refers
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 48 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 to disputes or claims in negligence, nuisance or
2 trespass, for example relating to the supply of goods, we
3 are talking legal terms of art there, and courses of
4 action that are known to the law.
5 The powers that are exercised under section 109 are
6 exercisable in the course of determining a consumer
7 dispute or a trader trader dispute which are subsets of
8 consumer trading disputes, and there is specific power to
9 vary contracts and there is power to make any order it
10 considers fair but in our submission whatever limits
11 there are on that power it has got to be done in the
12 context of hearing and determining the dispute according
13 to law and possibly, if fairness calls for it, adjustment
14 of legal rights and perhaps that could be done.
15 HER HONOUR: So if it is a statutory remedy you say that
16 exemplary damages won't apply, it will only apply if it
17 is a claim in negligence, nuisance, trespass in which
18 there is a right under the common law for exemplary
20 MR STRONG: Yes.
21 HER HONOUR: There is no right, you say, to exemplary damages
22 if it is a statutory breach?
23 MR STRONG: Well not this particular statutory breach because
24 the language of it is confined to recovering actual loss
25 and damage and the definition of exemplary damages is
26 that it is not actual loss, it is an award made to punish
27 the defendant.
28 HER HONOUR: Of course it would be open to parliament to
29 provide legislation which would include the right to
30 claim exemplary damages as part of a statutory breach?
31 MR STRONG: Yes.
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 49 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 HER HONOUR: But given the authorities you have referred me to
2 and given that there is no right in the sections under
3 which this claim is made for exemplary damages, you say
4 that 108(2)B(ii) must be confined to the claims in
5 negligence, nuisance or trespass that are referred to in
6 paragraph - - -
7 MR STRONG: Yes, or possibly other common law claims where
8 there is - like defamation. Perhaps it has been
9 abolished now, defamation, but if it hadn't, maybe that.
10 HER HONOUR: Yes.
11 MR STRONG: But wherever a court could award exemplary damages
12 then say too could the Tribunal, but the Tribunal hasn't
13 been liberated from the law to the extent it can go and
14 create a new classes of case in which exemplary damages
15 can be awarded.
16 The last point we make about exemplary damages is
17 that Mr Iyer has given no evidence at all which would
18 even remotely begin to justify any award of exemplary
19 damages, let alone the amount he is claiming.
20 We have provided Your Honour with two cases on
21 exemplary damages, both cited in the High Court of
22 Australia. They are the first two cases in volume 2 of
23 the authorities. The first is Uren v John Fairfax & Sons
24 and in that case the court declined to follow a decision
25 of the House of Lords which confined exemplary damages to
26 certain categories. They re-stated the law in cases in
27 which exemplary damages could be awarded and the accurate
28 flavour of it is found, for example, in the judgement of
29 Justice Taylor at 129 at the bottom of the page. It says
30 that the law relating to exemplary damages both in
31 England and in this country was that "Damages of that
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 50 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 character might be awarded if it appeared that, in the
2 commission of the wrong complained of, the conduct of the
3 defendant had been high handed, insolent, vindictive or
4 malicious or had in some other way exhibited a
5 contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights." That
6 expression that I have just said, "contumelious disregard
7 of the plaintiff's rights" is adopted as a good or
8 reasonable summary by the other members of the court.
9 In the subsequent decision which is at tab 9 of the
10 authorities, Lamb v Kotongo, the High Court again had
11 occasion to consider the availability of exemplary
12 damages and in a joint judgement the court held that - if
13 one goes to the discussion starting at page 7 of the
14 report, at the bottom of page 7 the court adopted and
15 confirmed the position that was adopted in Uren v John
16 Fairfax & Sons. At the top of page 8, "Notwithstanding
17 their Lordship's confined their remarks (indistinct) what
18 was said by this court in Uren v John Fairfax not so
19 restricted are the well settled judicial approach in
20 Australia that extends exemplary damages to a wider range
21 of torts."
22 Then they cite with approval passages above on page
23 8, Mayne and McGregor on damages. "Such damages are
24 called punitive, vindictive, exemplary and even
25 retributory damages. They can apply only where the
26 conduct of the defendant merits punishment which is only
27 considered to be so where his conduct is wanton as we
28 have discussed as fraud, malice, violence, cruelty,
29 insolence and the like as it is sometimes put where he
30 acts in contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 51 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)
1 Now that is the law of the country and there is no
2 evidence of anything of the kind here. All that could be
3 said is if your Honour though we had deceived Mr Iyer in
4 any way, is that we failed to appreciate that he didn't
5 understand our documents.
6 HER HONOUR: Thank you.
7 MR STRONG: Mr Iyer has said in his claim document that he
8 wants an injunction restraining Westpac or ordering
9 Westpac to cease its lending activities in Victoria.
10 HER HONOUR: That hasn't been mentioned today. I don't think
11 it is necessary for you to go into that matter unless an
12 application is made.
13 MR STRONG: In that case there are no further submissions.
14 HER HONOUR: I will adjourn the court now until 10.30 tomorrow
15 morning. The Tribunal list might say 10 o'clock but it
16 will be 10.30 tomorrow morning.
17 ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY 20 MARCH 2007
.VCH 19/03/07 CD 52 ADDRESS (MR STRONG)