Agency

The CBA resolution scheme put forth by the CBA is based on the premise that Storm were our agents and therefore had an implied authority to act on our behalf when dealing with banks. This is the thrust of the legal arguments outlined in Slater & Gordon's booklet pertaining to this scheme. I have argued otherwise in some of my correspondence to ASIC.

Conversely, we ourselves can argue that the banks were so closely allied with Storm and allowed that firm to carry out duties that were rightfully the bank' to perform, that they themselves employed Storm in a de facto agency role. 

This will be for the courts to decide. I have no doubt that the banks will throw this "agency" issue into the ring because they believe by so doing that this will mitigate their responsibility to a certain extent where some contractual breaches are concerned.

The relationship between Storm Financial and the banks is a unique one in law because covert agreements existed that the banks' customers knew nothing about. These agreements violated in part the contracts banks such as the CBA, the Macquarie, and the Bank of Queensland had with their Storm customers. The very fact that these were covert agreements that markedly affected the nature and conditions of these contracts will, I believe, be the banks' downfall. Therefore, any contention of 'Agency' by the banks should be a distraction rather than a telling blow. However, it's an issue that will arise and one that will, I feel, be central to the banks' defence.