The appellant and her husband jointly applied for a line of credit.
The bank subsequently communicated only with the husband, increased the credit limit, and issued an ABM card, which the husband used to access funds before going bankrupt.
The appellant denied liability, arguing the bank acted unilaterally.
The trial judge found the appellant liable based on the documents she signed, which permitted the bank's actions.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of the law.
