Gooley v NSW Rural Assistance Authority [2020] NSWCA 156

CONTRACTS – variation – whether term of credit facility varied – whether variation supported by adequate consideration – where difference in obligations capable of benefiting either party – contract effectively varied – whether bank repudiated contract in maintaining that term varied.

BANKING AND FINANCE – Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), ss 12CB and 12DA – whether in varying term of credit facility bank engaged in misleading or deceptive or unconscionable conduct – whether in making loan bank engaged in unconscionable conduct – no question of principle.

BANKING AND FINANCE – Code of Banking Practice, cll 2.2, 25.1 and 25.2 – whether breach of obligation to exercise care and skill of a diligent and prudent banker – whether breach of obligation to try to help borrower to overcome financial difficulties with a credit facility – no question of principle.

BANKING AND FINANCE – National Credit Code – whether loan “unjust” credit contract within s 76(1) – whether bank failed to respond to hardship notices as required by s 72(4) – whether National Credit Code applied – where the predominant purpose for which credit was provided or was intended to be provided was not a Code purpose – no question of principle.

PRIMARY INDUSTRY – Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 (NSW) – whether enforcement action taken in contravention of Act – no question of principle.

Tim Castle SC represented the Second and Third Respondents.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Gooley v NSW Rural Assistance Authority (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1314

EVIDENCE — records of prior communications concerning FOS complaint – admissibility – hearsay – prior consistent statement.

EVIDENCE — Opinion evidence — Expert opinion – economist’s opinion about conduct of bank towards customers – admissibility – Makita principles.

CONTRACTS – Performance – Variation of Terms – variation of loan repayment terms – need for consideration – assumption of risk that variation may benefit either party.

CONTRACTS — Misleading conduct under statute — variation of loan terms purportedly without customer’s knowledge and approval – misleading or deceptive conduct - unconscionable conduct - estoppel.

BANKING AND FINANCE — Banks – Statutory unconscionability – two year commercial loan – “asset lending” – breach of term of contract incorporating Banking Code of Practice.

BANKING AND FINANCE — Banks – breach of term of contract incorporating Banking Code of Practice cll 25.2 and 2.2 – requirement under term for co-operation between the customer and Bank – no breach by fixing final date for repayment after period of forbearance.

BANKING AND FINANCE — Banks — Bank accounts — Interest – entitlement to charge interest at contractual rates following expiry of loan – entitlement to interest on amounts paid and set aside for costs – repudiation – termination.

Tim Castle represented the Defendant.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Print Mail Logistics Limited v Warratah Investments Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1618

CORPORATIONS – application to set aside a statutory demand or in the alternative for a permanent injunction – where creditor has refused to assign securities – whether the affidavit accompanying the statutory demand met the requirements of s 459E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) – whether creditor is intentionally acting to impair securities that ought to be available for a guarantor or an incoming financier upon payment of the principal debt – whether the Court should set aside the demand on the basis of s 459H(1) or s 459J(1)(b) of the Act or grant a permanent injunction – application allowed.

David Rayment represented the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Kekatos v Westpac Banking Corporation [2016] NSWCA 205

APPEAL – application for leave – where default judgment for money sum and possession of property set aside by consent – where subsequent application to set aside consent order and reinstate default judgment but for lesser amount – whether arguable defence to judgment for lesser amount – leave refused.

Tim D. Castle appeared for Westpac Bank.

Kekatos v Westpac Banking Corporation [2016] NSWCA 205

APPEAL – application for leave – where default judgment for money sum and possession of property set aside by consent – where subsequent application to set aside consent order and reinstate default judgment but for lesser amount – whether arguable defence to judgment for lesser amount – leave refused.

Tim Castle and Daniel Moujali represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the judgement can be found here.

Sayde Developments Pty Limited v Arab Bank Australia Limited [2016] NSWDC 76

BANKING - whether default interest payable under commercial facility constitutes a penalty.

Tim D. Castle appeared for Arab Bank Australia Ltd.

Arab Bank of Australia Ltd v Jeitani [2016] NSWSC 617

REAL PROPERTY – possession of land – mortgages - mortgagor in default – sale of properties by mortgagee in possession – GST gross-up clauses in sale contracts – mortgagee required to pay GST on sales – whether gross-up clauses should have been enforced – whether any duty owed in that regard to guarantor of mortgagor – guarantee not called upon – undertaking by mortgagee not to call on guarantor – whether guarantor suffered loss by failure to enforce gross-up clauses.

REAL PROPERTY – mortgages – rights of mortgagor – to discharge the mortgage – whether loan and mortgage regulated under the Consumer Credit Code – Business Purpose Declaration signed by mortgagor – whether lender knew or had to reason to believe the loan was wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes – refusal by mortgagee to discharge mortgage on the basis that mortgage secured other loans – whether mortgagee acted unreasonably – whether obligation on mortgagor’s part to tender amount owing to mortgagee in the face of refusal to discharge.

Tim D. Castle acted for Arab Bank of Australia Ltd.

Menzies v Paccar Financial Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 400

ANSHUN ESTOPPEL - Whether applicants precluded by Anshun estoppel from obtaining claims under Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth) – whether Supreme Court of New South Wales invested with federal jurisdiction with respect to such claims – whether unreasonable for applicants to refrain from making such claims in earlier proceedings – whether claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process have any reasonable prospect of success

David Rayment appeared for the finance company, PACCAR Financial Pty Ltd instructed by Mills Oakley Solicitors.