Judge Criticizes Westpac in $44.11 Dispute Ruling

The recent court ruling involving Westpac has raised significant scrutiny regarding the bank’s practices and customer relations. A key figure in this case is Fiona Vinall, who is suing Westpac’s St George for misleading conduct that originated from a minor mortgage discrepancy worth just $44.11.

Judge’s Criticism of Westpac

On February 13, 2026, Justice David Hammerschlag of the NSW Supreme Court directly criticized Westpac for its handling of Vinall’s situation. He described the bank’s lack of responsiveness as a failure of “basic commercial morality.” This issue arose when Vinall’s mortgage payments were inadvertently adjusted after a rate change, resulting in a reported adverse credit history that negatively impacted her ability to secure a new home.

The Dispute Background

The dispute began in July 2025 when Vinall misinterpreted communication from St George regarding interest rate changes. She mistakenly reduced her mortgage payment a month early, leading to a $44.11 shortfall. Despite her efforts to rectify the situation, including making the payment by August, the bank failed to remove the negative credit report, which contributed to a significant drop in her credit score.

• Key Events:
  • Fiona Vinall’s mortgage payments fell due to a misunderstanding regarding interest rates.
  • The bank reported an adverse credit history over a minor shortfall.
  • Justice Hammerschlag ordered the removal of adverse credit information.
• Consequences:
  • The negative reporting hindered Vinall’s ability to purchase a new home.
  • Vinall is pursuing claims for damages stemming from the bank’s conduct.
  • Westpac was ordered to cover Vinall’s legal costs.

Legal Proceedings

Legal proceedings highlighted the bank’s poor communication, as notifications regarding the hearing did not reach the appropriate representatives in time. Justice Hammerschlag was prompted to require Westpac’s CEO, Anthony Miller, to appear in court due to the bank’s refusal to rectify the reporting error voluntarily.

Westpac’s Response

In light of mounting pressure, Westpac’s legal team eventually notified the court that the adverse information had been erased from credit records. This swift action came just before Justice Hammerschlag’s hearing that would have required Miller’s presence.

In his remarks, Hammerschlag condemned the bank’s initial inaction, stating that it was “legally unjustifiable” and criticized its reluctance to address what he deemed a trivial yet damaging error. Westpac has acknowledged the court’s ruling and stated that it will evaluate the implications of this case further.

Next Steps

The dispute is expected to proceed to the District Court, where Vinall’s claim for damages will be considered. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for how banking institutions handle similar consumer issues moving forward.

As this situation unfolds, it remains crucial for banks to ensure clarity and transparency in their communications with customers to prevent mishaps that could lead to substantial negative consequences.