It was heard that Perrin used "elaborate" methods to forge the signature, in one case contacting his daughter's school to obtain a permission slip that had been signed by his wife, Nicole.
Judge Philip McMurdo handed down the ruling, clearing Nicole of any liability to the loan, which was made in 2008.
The court heard that Perrin borrowed the money and used his Gold Coast home in order to serve as collateral. But when he was declared bankrupt, Nicole was targeted by the bank.
However, it was also found that Nicole Perrin "took no real interest in what was being done with their money", and that it may be unlikely she knew of the couple's state of affairs.
"After the Billabong float, they were very wealthy and I accept that she would have had no expectation that they would ever have to borrow money again," McMurdo said.
In an unusual turn, the bank also called on Matthew's brother Fraser to testify that his signature – which was used as the apparent witness on the loan documents – was also forged.
The Commonwealth Bank attempted to argue that because Nicole Perrin took several weeks to inform it of the forgeries after learning of them herself, and that because of this she is partly liable. However, the court ruled that there would have been several reasons for waiting this long, including using that time to obtain legal advice.
"The bank argues that she did not tell the bank until she had to do so, in response to a letter of demand, and that she refrained from volunteering the truth to the bank because she wished to allow as much time to pass as possible," the court found.
However, it also stated that Nicole Perrin undertook an "understandable course" of action by receiving legal advice and having the documents examined.
It was also said that if Nicole Perrin had known earlier about her husband's poor finances, she would not have approved going to the bank for another loan.
"In my conclusion Matthew Perrin did not have the implied authority of the defendant to sign the documents upon which the bank relies," McMurdo stated.
"The plaintiff's claim against the defendant will be dismissed. The defendant has established that the register should be corrected to remove the bank's mortgages."
Related Items :
