Agusta Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd

Case [2010] NSWCA 110



New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Agusta Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd [2010] NSWCA 110
JUDGMENT OF: Macfarlan JA at 1; Tobias JA at 6
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 6 May 2010
DECISION: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - ambiguous conduct not a basis for implying contract for renewal of loan
CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings
CASES CITED: Laidlaw v Hillier Elsley Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 44
PARTIES: Agusta Pty Ltd (Applicant)
Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (First Respondent)
Challenger Managed Investments Ltd (Second Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 2007/00263467
COUNSEL: D Ash (Applicant)
P Barham (Respondents)
SOLICITORS: Colin Biggers & Paisley (Applicant)
Deacons (Respondents)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 15032/2007
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McCallum J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 9 October 2009
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Agusta Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 1075




                          CA 2007/00263467

                          TOBIAS JA
                          MACFARLAN JA

                          6 MAY 2010
AGUSTA PTY LTD v PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD
Judgment

1 MACFARLAN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of McCallum J of 9 October 2009. The only aspect of that decision under challenge is her Honour’s finding that a loan made by the respondent to the applicant was not the subject of an agreement to renew when the term of the loan expired in November 2007.

2 There was no express agreement to renew the loan but the applicant contended that such an agreement had been made by implication. It relied upon conduct of the respondent after the date of expiration of the loan which pointed towards the existence of a renewal agreement. There was, however, conduct of the respondent which pointed in the opposite direction. This comprised the commencement and pursuit by the respondent of proceedings for possession of a property which was mortgaged to secure repayment of the loan. These proceedings were only justified if the loan had not been renewed and was thus repayable.

3 Her Honour rightly held that in these circumstances the applicant had not proved that the loan had been impliedly renewed. The conduct of the respondent was clearly ambiguous. This precluded any implication that it had agreed to renew the loan and I refer in this respect to what I said (with the concurrence of Beazley JA) in Laidlaw v Hillier Elsley Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 44 at [5] – [9].

4 I add that I do not agree with the applicant’s contention that the primary judge erred in her application of relevant case authorities.

5 As an appeal from the decision under challenge would not succeed, the application for leave should be refused. I propose that the application for leave be dismissed with costs.

: I agree. The order of the Court will be as proposed by Macfarlan JA.


      **********
Details
AGLC
Agusta Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd [2010] NSWCA 110
Case
[2010] NSWCA 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Agusta Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a loan agreement with Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd (the respondent). The dispute arose from the applicant's contention that the respondent had agreed to renew a loan facility, despite the absence of a formal written agreement to that effect.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether, in the absence of express agreement, the conduct of the parties could give rise to an implied contract for the renewal of the loan facility. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the respondent's actions were sufficiently indicative of an intention to be legally bound to renew the loan on terms that were not clearly defined.

The court held that ambiguous conduct, without more, could not form the basis for implying a contract for the renewal of a loan facility. The principles of contract law require a clear intention to create legal relations and a sufficiently certain agreement on essential terms. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the respondent's conduct evinced such an intention or certainty in relation to the renewal of the loan.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.