Background
Hartmut and Angela Frigger, self-represented, began this proceeding against Bank of Queensland Limited (BoQ) in October 2021. Their final pleading sought compensation under s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law for loss of deposited funds and lost investment opportunities, said to exceed $11.5 million, arising from restrictions on withdrawals from two accounts. Mr Frigger sued as trustee of the Frigger Super Fund (FSF); Mrs Frigger sued personally. The second respondent, Kelly-Anne Trenfield, trustee of both Friggers’ bankrupt estates, was no longer subject to any claim and filed a submitting notice save as to costs.
The pleaded case concerned a Savings Account in Mrs Frigger’s name and a Second WebSavings Account in Mr Frigger’s name. After sequestration orders were made on 20 July 2018, the Official Receiver requested restrictions under s 125 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). BoQ refused withdrawal attempts on 27 July 2018 and, after the Friggers’ discharge from bankruptcy, on 30 July 2021. The Friggers alleged that BoQ’s product disclosure statement misleadingly represented that there were no withdrawal restrictions, and also pleaded contractual breach and contraventions of s 125.
Justice Vandongen heard BoQ’s January 2022 summary-judgment application on 24 June and 11 August 2026. The application invoked s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), alleging both abuse of process and no reasonable prospect of successful prosecution.
The Court’s Holding
The Court gave judgment for BoQ under r 26.01(1)(d), holding that the proceeding was an abuse of process. Its compensation claim depended on findings that the accounts were FSF assets when withdrawals were restricted. But in Frigger v Trenfield (No 10) [2021] FCA 1500, Jackson J had found that the Friggers failed to establish that either account was held on the FSF trusts or contributed to the fund before bankruptcy, and that their account-holder interests vested in their bankruptcy trustee under s 58(1)(a). The Full Court dismissed their appeal, including the challenge concerning FSF ownership, and the High Court refused special leave. Re-litigating that ultimate issue would be an impermissible collateral attack, undermine finality and risk inconsistent rulings about who could require BoQ to pay the credited funds. Mrs Frigger’s assertion that the earlier orders were obtained by fraud did not alter their effect: they had not been set aside, and no application doing so was identified.
Independently, the Court held that the proceeding had no reasonable prospect of success under s 31A(2) and r 26.01(1)(a). Section 236 requires loss or damage “because of” a relevant contravention. The Friggers did not plead loss because of the alleged misleading representation; they alleged loss because withdrawals were restricted, which was not pleaded as an Australian Consumer Law contravention. Nor did they plead that the alleged contractual breach or s 125 contravention grounded damages under s 236.
On s 125 specifically, the Court did not announce a universal bar to account-holder damages claims. Leaving standing aside, it held that the pleaded material facts were incapable of establishing a contravention; if proved, they would instead indicate that BoQ would have contravened s 125 by permitting the requested withdrawals. The Court also explained that vested choses in action remained vested after discharge from bankruptcy. It did not decide the Friggers’ hearing application to amend their pleading to include s 4 of the Australian Consumer Law, because that was unnecessary, and did not rely on Mrs Frigger’s apparent concession concerning the Savings Account in finding abuse.
Key Takeaways
- On these facts, a compensation claim requiring findings inconsistent with finally determined account-ownership findings was an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process.
- The pleaded s 236 claim failed causation because it did not allege loss “because of” the misleading representation, instead attributing loss to withdrawal restrictions not pleaded as an ACL contravention.
- The s 125 ruling was pleading-specific: the alleged facts could not establish BoQ’s contravention, and the Court expressly left standing aside.
- The amendment application remained undecided; evidentiary objections also did not require determination because the claim failed irrespective of the Friggers’ evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how bankruptcy vesting and prior final determinations can defeat a later compensation claim at summary judgment, without requiring a trial of disputed evidence. It also demonstrates the importance of pleading the statutory causal link between alleged misleading conduct and claimed loss, rather than relying on separate restrictions or alleged statutory and contractual breaches.
The amended originating application was otherwise dismissed. No final costs orders were made: each respondent was directed to file and serve costs submissions of no more than five pages by 4.00 pm AWST on 13 November 2026, with the applicants’ responsive submissions, also limited to five pages, due by 4.00 pm AWST on 27 November 2026. The Court would then consider how to resolve costs under the overarching purpose in s 37M.