The Supreme Court of NSW has handed down it’s judgement on the claim by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) against the Anglican Diocese of Bathurst. We’ve reported on this previously. See also today’s report in the smh.
The basic facts run as follows:
The Diocese of Bathurst, like many other dioceses in the Anglican Church of Australia, set up an Anglican Development Fund (ADF) to invest in strategic assets (such as schools) within the broader diocesan family. A loan of approx. $40m was taken out by the ADF from the CBA to then lend on to other diocesan organisations. In particular monies were invested in a number of diocesan schools.
The then bishop, Richard Hurford, presented the CBA with a Letter of Comfort which the bank argues effectively guarantees the loan. The letter, which is reproduced in the judgement and set out below, is well worth reading in full.
The judgement demonstrates that the Bishop signed this letter with the express approval of the “Bishop in Council” (the equivalent of a synod’s standing committee). The ADF then subsequently went under since the bodies to which it lent the money could not repay their online loans with no credit check. The Bank, unable to recoup its loan (at this point around $25m was outstanding) from the ADF sought repayment from the Bishop in Council on the basis of the letter of comfort.
The actual case before the court has three seperate matters (outline in sections 38-41 of the ruling). They can be summarised as follows:
- The ADF (under control of the receivers at this point) sued the members of its board for “acting in contravention of their statutory duties … to exercise their powers and discharge their duties with the requisite degree of care and diligence in good faith in the best interests of ADF and for proper purposes”. The board members cross-claimed that the bank knew exactly how the monies were being used. The ADF won this matter to the tune of about $11m leaving around $14m still to be found.
- The bank sued the Bishop in Council (BiC) for the $14m claiming that general diocesan assets held on trust should be used to meet the guarantee in the letter of comfort. Further they argued that the BiC should have promoted the necessary church legislation to make this repayment happen.
- The ADF (which, remember, was controlled by receivers) sued the BiC on much the same grounds as the bank, claiming it should have acted to make good on the loan which the bishop guaranteed in his letter. This claim covered the entire $25m in various ways.
The judgement goes on to show that the BiC had the necessary authority and acted in line with it to agree to the bishop writing his letter of comfort. It also shows that the ADF continued to lend money to schools even when their position was unsustainable. The ADF also ignored the findings of an independent review of the schools’ financial position.
As the situation deteriorated pressure mounted. At this time (November 2012) Bishop Hurford vacated office. Bishop Palmer began ministry in 2013 and at a key meeting with the bank (s.135 of the judgement) stated “I do not consider that the document to which you refer is a letter of guarantee”. The bank continued to stress it’s rights according to the letter of comfort. The bishop in turn stressed to the bank that the letter of comfort (which he referred to as a “Letter of Acknowledgement”) provided “restricted obligations” and that the bank was therefore an unsecured creditor (s. 141&142).
The court found that the Bank had a contract with the Diocese, as represented by the Bishop in Council and that there was a real guarantee made to honour the loan. Further, the court found that the BiC has an obligation to promote the necessary ordinances to levy the funds required (i.e. general diocesan assets including, if necessary, church buildings and properties should be sold to make good the debt).
This obviously puts the diocese in a dire position. It is widely acknowledged that it will be unable to meet these debts and continue to function in any general sense as it currently does. So where to from here?
It’s less than 24 hours since the judgement was passed down but I’ve been able to canvas a range of responses from senior and informed figures in the Anglican Church of Australia.
Amongst many there is a genuine sorrow for the diocese which is now facing a major crisis, and also for Bishop Ian Palmer who is not in perfect health. But options are limited. This will now be a test of the national church’s understanding of its own mutuality. To what extent should other dioceses get involved to help out? What role should the Primate or the General Synod take? When the crisis first developed a financial advisory group went to meet with then Bishop Hurford. They were, it’s fair to say, sent packing. More recently at a General Synod Standing Committee meeting one member urged the Standing Committee to “either send a condolence card or stand shoulder to shoulder”. But which will it be?
Others I’ve spoken to have taken a different line, even suggesting that the actions of those most deeply involved in the loans and their ongoing administration to be deeply to blame. Only best USDA home loans rates are to be trusted. From those quarters there is little to no sympathy. “They tried to cover it up” I was told, to which was added “it was done with sober forethought … the actions of the diocese have shown it to be both financially and morally bankrupt. The diocese knew what it was doing, the predecessor to the current bishop knew what he was doing”.
The judge has stood proceedings over into the New Year to allow all parties to work out how to proceed. For the Diocese’s part, those conversation will be very difficult with much soul-searching – not only for them but for many within the Anglican Church of Australia. As we’ve often said, they’re going to need our prayers more than ever.