The New South Wales Court of Appeal, by a majority of two judges to one, has granted a former high school teacher, Robert Dunwoodie, the right to appeal against a District Court judgment in favour of the Teachers Mutual Bank (formerly known as the New South Wales Teachers Credit Union). The bank was seeking more than $60,000 in redress after paying out almost $60,000 against a cheque from the Commonwealth Bank, which the ex-teacher had deposited into his credit union account.At the time, the credit union permitted cheques to be cashed on its members' accounts without clearance or enquiry.The CBA cheque was drawn against funds that were subject to clearance of another $60,000 cheque deposited by Dunwoodie into his newly opened CBA account earlier that day. When CBA dishonoured the cheque several days later, the chain of transactions unravelled, leaving $60,000 in cash missing and the credit union chasing its customer.While the details and chain of events as recounted by Dunwoodie in court would not be out of place in a television crime drama, the legal outcome should serve to remind the banking sector that lax or overly generous cheque clearing procedures, or reliance on poorly drafted terms and conditions to claw back funds, may not be viewed favourably by the courts.In this instance, Dunwoodie said he was acting under duress from people he believed to be Hells Angels bikie gang members when he withdrew $59,950 in cash from his account. He contended the judge who first heard his case should not have found him liable to repay this amount, plus interest and other costs, to the bank and raised several arguments, including that he was severely depressed at the time, and under the effects of medication after he was jailed in 2009.While in jail, Dunwoodie asserted, another inmate identified only as X, threatened him with death or personal injury and said he would reveal why Dunwoodie was serving periodic detention if he did not do his bidding. The court allowed Dunwoodie's appeal - by a majority of two judges to one - on the grounds that the policy adopted by the bank had the effect of enabling funds to be released before the time had passed for a cheque to be dishonoured, and therefore it was "fairly arguable in law or fact" that the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) could apply."… it is not the protection of imprudent lenders which lead courts to refuse to enforce credit contracts, but rather the failure adequately to respect the separate interests of the customer," said Justice John Basten, one of the judges who ruled that an appeal should be heard."If the terms offered by the credit provider encourage or facilitate irresponsible borrowing, or even facilitate fraud or exploitation through third party duress, those terms may be subject to review under the Contracts Review Act," Justice Basten also noted.Whether or not the teacher had been coerced into making in effect a fraudulent withdrawal by members of the Hells Angels gang was not considered