My first advice to Jack Wilson, the bank’s lead Counsel, was to investigate the hidden facts. I further suggested that he get an opinion about the Belgian law in point. It turned out that, just as in Australia, a Belgian bank reference was not considered a business advice based on detailed research. This was particularly so if the reference was given without responsibility. Under Belgian law, such a disclaimer was effective. Another point emphasised in our Belgian legal opinion was that, as a matter of fact, the person who received the reference was entitled to bring an action to recover his losses only if he was able to establish that he had relied on the reference.
Turning back to our pleadings, I was relieved to note that, technically, the Bank had denied Vollar’s reliance on the reference and had added that, in any event, Vollar was not entitled to treat it as the basis for the investment he was planning to make. Indeed, he had not disclosed the object of his enquiry in his request for information. Bruce Smith had no reason to surmise that, pending his reference, Vollar was proposing to inject a substantial amount in the business or assume the role of a partner. Further, Vollar was not a customer of our bank. Why, then, had he harked in his salvos on breaches of a duty allegedly owed to him?
Having digested the information, I attended a meeting of the Bank’s management. I was not surprised to find out that the case became of major importance. The good faith of one of the Bank’s branch managers was put in question. Vollar had pleaded fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit as well as a breach of a duty of care owed to him by the Bank. Effectively, the bank’s good name was at risk. The CEO, who had flown over from Sydney, put it succinctly: “The hell with money. What matters is our reputation. That fellow, Vollar, says we are a bunch of sharks. I want him to eat his words!!! The blasted beggar.”