Strike out — summary judgment — disclosure —assignment — mortgage — transfer of interest in property — credit contracts — oppressive behaviour — issue estoppel — damages — Stephen Todd “Duty Principles” in Todd (Ed) Law of Torts in New Zealand (Thomson Reuters) — Westpac Banking Corp v M M Kembla New Zealand Ltd [2001] 2 NZLR 298 — O’Leary v Sygrove CA 385/92, 17 June 1993 — Attorney General v Prince [1991] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) — Couch v Attorney General [2008] NZSC 45; [2008] 3 NZLR 725 — Shivas v Bank of New Zealand [1990] 2 NZLR 327 — Cygnet Farms Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2016] NZHC 2838; [2017] 2 NZLR 538 — Colley v Westpac New Zealand Limited [2013] NZCA 57 — New Zealand Payroll Software Systems Ltd v Advanced Management Systems Ltd [2003] 3 NZLR 1 — Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 3, 9, 18, 22, 88, 89, 91, 92, 118 & 120 — Contractual Remedies Act 1979, ss 4 & 11(1) — Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 54 — Contracts (Privity) Act 1982 — Property Law Act 2007, ss 28, 43, 46, 48 & 50 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 12.2, 12.4(5)(b) & 15.1. Two plaintiffs filed a statement of claim pleading that the defendant had been negligent, had breached its disclosure obligations, and had acted oppressively against them. The claim arose from the plaintiffs' attempts to take over the obligation for a joint account and mortgages associated with two properties that the second plaintiff jointly owned with her ex-partner. Following their separation the second plaintiff entered into a relationship with the first plaintiff, subsequently entering into an agreement where the ex-partner would assign all interest in the properties in return for a one off payment and the first plaintiff would take over responsibility for the mortgage and associated account. During these dealings the defendant and the ex-partner reduced the account's overdraft without the plaintiffs' knowledge, and the ex-partner also withdrew a large sum of money from the account. The defendant argued that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action and should be struck out, and/or that the defendant should be awarded summary judgment. The Court examined relevant documentation, and found that the plaintiffs were aware that the rights and obligations relating to the bank account could only be transferred from the ex-partner to the first plaintiff if the defendant gave consent. The defendant had not given such consent, and in fact the plaintiffs had never asked it to. The first plaintiff had no contractual relationship with the defendant and therefore no standing to argue a breach of duty of care. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant was negligent in allowing the ex-partner to reduce the account's overdraft and to withdraw money from the account. The Court found that agreements entered into by the plaintiffs allowed the ex-partner to continue to use the account, including the withdrawal of funds. Further, the defendant had advised the plaintiffs of the ex-partner's continued powers to use the account. Therefore the claim in negligence failed. Likewise, there was nothing in the defendant's refusal to refinance the plaintiffs' loan, or refusal to recognise the first plaintiff as an assignee of rights to use the account, that could qualify as "oppressive" conduct. However, the Court considered that the second plaintiff did have a potential cause of action for the defendant's failure to disclose to her the changes to the account's overdraft limit. A variety of other claims by the plaintiffs also failed. All of the first plaintiff's claims were struck out for lack of cause of action, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on all of the second defendant's claims except the claim for failing to disclose, and the defendant was entitled to costs on a 2B scale. Judgment Date: 19 July 2018.