ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers - [2003] QSC 304

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers & Anor [2003] QSC 304

PARTIES:

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ABN 11 005 357 522)
(plaintiff)
v
STEPHEN ALEXANDER RODGERS and ROSLYN RODGERS
(defendants)

FILE NO:

S 7655 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 September 2003

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff

CATCHWORDS:

Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 84
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 149

CONTRACT – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – Alteration of Written Instrument – where the defendants defaulted on the repayment of monies and the plaintiff sought to rely on security documents executed by the defendants – where the defendants alleged that either the documents were unenforceable or that the plaintiffs were estopped from relying on the terms and conditions of the loan set out in the offer documents – whether the terms and conditions of the loan could be relied upon by the plaintiff – whether the security documents had been materially altered following execution – whether the security documents had been forged or executed by parties other than the defendants

Armor Coatings (Marketing) Pty Ltd v General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd (1978) 17 SASR 259
FAI Insurances Ltd v Pioneer Concrete Services Limited (1987) 15 NSWLR 552
Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Slade & Nelson (1996) 38 NSWLR 636
Master v Miller (1791) 4 Term Rep 320
Moody v Cox & Hatt [1917] 2 Ch 71
Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90

Warburton v National Westminster Finance Australia Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 238

COUNSEL:

I R Perkins for the plaintiff

The defendants appeared on their own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the plaintiff
The defendants appeared on their own behalf

The original allegations in the statement of claim

MUIR J: The plaintiff in its claim and statement of claim claims possession of a parcel of land registered in the name of the defendants and mortgaged by the defendants to the plaintiff as security for the indebtedness of Rodgers Family Investments Pty Ltd (“the company”). The following summarises the allegations in the statement of claim.

The mortgage secured repayment to the plaintiff of moneys owing or to become owing to the plaintiff by each of the defendants under separate deeds of guarantee and indemnity dated 5 October 2001 provided by the defendants to the plaintiff. Under each guarantee the defendant guarantors agreed to pay on demand to the plaintiff all moneys owing or which may become owing by him or her to the plaintiff. In May 2002 the company was in arrears in the payments due under three loan facilities provided to the company by the plaintiff.

On 8 May 2002 the plaintiff, by notice in writing, demanded payment by the company of $449,319, being the amount owing by the company to the plaintiff under the facilities. A…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers

Details

AGLC: ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers [2003] QSC 304
Case: [2003] QSC 304
Decision Date: 17 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers involved the bank suing the defendants for breach of loan terms and seeking to enforce security documents. The dispute centred around the enforceability of these documents, which the defendants argued were either unenforceable or that the bank was estopped from enforcing them. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the bank's claims and the enforceability of the security documents in question. The legal issues that arose in this case were whether the bank could rely on the terms and conditions of the loan set out in the offer documents and whether the security documents had been materially altered following execution or were forged. The court had to assess the validity of the defendants' defences and the legitimacy of the security documents.

The court began by examining the defendants' claims that the security documents were either unenforceable or that the bank was estopped from enforcing them. The court found that the defendants had failed to provide any evidence to support these claims. Furthermore, the court held that the security documents were valid and enforceable and had not been materially altered following execution. The court also dismissed the defendants' claims of forgery, finding that the security documents were executed by the defendants themselves. The court concluded that the bank was entitled to rely on the terms and conditions of the loan set out in the offer documents and that the defendants were liable for the breach of those terms.

Based on the court's findings, the ANZ Banking Group Ltd was awarded judgment in its favour. The court held that the defendants were liable for the breach of the loan terms and that the security documents were valid and enforceable. The court ordered the defendants to repay the monies owed to the bank, along with interest and costs. This case serves as a reminder to borrowers that they are bound by the terms of their loan agreements and that any security documents executed in connection with those agreements are valid and enforceable.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff

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.

CITATION:	ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Rodgers & Anor [2003] QSC 304
PARTIES:	AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LIMITED (ABN 11 005 357 522) (plaintiff) v STEPHEN ALEXANDER RODGERS and ROSLYN RODGERS (defendants)
FILE NO:	S 7655 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	17 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1, 2, 3, 4, 5 September 2003
JUDGE:	Muir J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff
CATCHWORDS:	Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 84 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 149 CONTRACT – DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH – Alteration of Written Instrument – where the defendants defaulted on the repayment of monies and the plaintiff sought to rely on security documents executed by the defendants – where the defendants alleged that either the documents were unenforceable or that the plaintiffs were estopped from relying on the terms and conditions of the loan set out in the offer documents – whether the terms and conditions of the loan could be relied upon by the plaintiff – whether the security documents had been materially altered following execution – whether the security documents had been forged or executed by parties other than the defendants Armor Coatings (Marketing) Pty Ltd v General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd (1978) 17 SASR 259 FAI Insurances Ltd v Pioneer Concrete Services Limited (1987) 15 NSWLR 552 Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Slade & Nelson (1996) 38 NSWLR 636 Master v Miller (1791) 4 Term Rep 320 Moody v Cox & Hatt [1917] 2 Ch 71 Meyers v Casey (1913) 17 CLR 90 Warburton v National Westminster Finance Australia Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 238
COUNSEL:	I R Perkins for the plaintiff The defendants appeared on their own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Minter Ellison for the plaintiff The defendants appeared on their own behalf