THE BOTTOM LINE
- A “No” Is a No: Banks are not liable for a client’s missed opportunities if they clearly reject a loan application based on established lending criteria. The duty of care does not compel a bank to grant a loan that falls outside its policies.
- Discussions Are Not Commitments: A borrower cannot justifiably rely on receiving financing until a formal, written offer is on the table. Lengthy or optimistic preliminary conversations do not create a legal obligation for the bank to lend.
- Responsibility Cuts Both Ways: While banks have a duty of care, clients also have a responsibility to act on market information (like rising interest rates) and cannot hold a bank liable for inaction after a financing request has been clearly denied.
THE DETAILS
The case revolved around a pilot who sought a multi-million euro mortgage from ABN AMRO. After extended discussions with different departments, the bank ultimately refused the financing. The core issue was the bank’s refusal to count repayments from a personal loan the applicant had made to his brother as qualifying income. The applicant sued, arguing the bank had breached its special duty of care by leading him to believe the loan was possible and by failing to communicate effectively. He claimed this delay cost him the chance to secure financing elsewhere at a much lower interest rate before the market shifted.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal decisively sided with the bank, providing important clarity for corporate leaders and lenders. The court found that the bank had communicated its rejection clearly and on two separate occasions. Emails explicitly stated that the applicant’s income structure did not meet the bank’s internal acceptance criteria—a policy designed to prevent over-lending. The court determined that all discussions had remained in an “exploratory phase” and never amounted to a formal offer. As such, the applicant had no reasonable basis to assume financing was guaranteed.
This ruling reinforces the boundaries of a bank’s special duty of care (“zorgplicht“). The court established that this duty does not obligate a bank to find a workable solution for every potential borrower or to engage with every hypothetical scenario presented after a rejection. After the bank delivered its final negative decision, its duty regarding that specific request was fulfilled. The court also noted that the applicant was aware that interest rates were rising and had a commercial responsibility to mitigate his own risk rather than passively waiting for the bank to reconsider a rejected proposal.
SOURCE
Source: Gerechtshof Amsterdam
