Commentary and case law from the Commercial Bar Association's finest.
This recent decision illustrates how a broad approach to the slip rule allowed the bank to amend its order for possession, despite the same error appearing in the description of the security property on a notice sent under the mortgage, and also in the bank’s statement of claim.
Section 1305 of the Corporations Act is an important tool for practitioners in debt and loan recovery. The section provides that books and records of a company are (1) admissible, and (2) prima facie proof of any matter recorded therein (eg a loan). However, a recent NSW case is a reminder the presumption is rebuttable.
Where one has a purported deed or a ‘heads of agreement’ type of document, when might that document be binding and when might it fall short? And when might someone who has not signed the document still be a ‘party’ to it?
Parties to a contract enter into a further contract by which they vary the original contract terms. Is the effect of the second contract to bring the first contract to an end and to replace it with the second, or to leave the first contract standing, subject to alteration?
Balanced Securities Limited v Dumayne Property Group Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 61
The Supreme Court of Victoria has partly granted an application by a financier, Equity-One, for summary dismissal of a claim brought against it by a borrower/guarantor. The decision considers the principles applicable to summary dismissal of a claim where allegations of Anshun estoppel and the doctrine of penalties are raised.
For the second time in four years the High Court has considered penalties, but the law remains somewhat fragmented and challenges remain for practitioners seeking to apply it in practice.
The decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal demonstrates how a strict approach to granting summary judgment still prevails in that jurisdiction. There is in pronounced contrast to the post – Civil Procedure Act landscape in Victoria, where novel claims (unknown to Australian law in its current state) need to be supported by compelling submissions in order to survive the ‘no real prospects of success test’.
While courts have long wrestled with the proper characterisation of parties’ interests in money paid into court, the journey of judicial interpretation of the PPSA has only just begun. In Dura the Victorian Court of Appeal considered whether payments into court gave rise to security interests for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA).
The decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal confirms that the Banking Code obligation to exercise care skill and diligence in assessing credit can (and will often) be incorporated as a contractual term into guarantees. This finding is likely to affect lenders’ risk assessments when considering ‘riskier’ loans
Final decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) made on the basis of its opinion as to what is fair in all the circumstances are rarely reviewable by the courts, even if it makes errors in the decision-making process.
The Victorian Court of Appeal has considered the test applicable to applications for leave to appeal in respect of civil appeals. Leave to appeal will be granted if an appeal has a ‘real’ as opposed to a ‘fanciful’ prospect of success.
The revelations in the case around FOS staffing, expertise and decision-making make for interesting reading for those involved in banking enforcement litigation and the reasons in the case provide helpful guidance on construing the TOR.
Case Note by Kieran Hickie and Andrew Kirby. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has overturned the decision of Gordon J that late payment fees charged by the ANZ bank on credit cards against its customers constituted penalties and were unenforceable.
Case Note by Kieran Hickie and Andrew Kirby. The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in National Australia Bank Ltd v Rice [2015] VSC 10 highlights that care and attention must be taken by banks and lenders to ensure compliance with the Banking Code is taken in order for guarantors to understand their rights and liabilities under a guarantee. Non-compliance with the requirements of the Banking Code can result in guarantees not being enforceable.