FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Astram Financial Services Pty Limited v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1508
Citation: Astram Financial Services Pty Limited v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1508 Appeal from: Astram Financial Services Pty Ltd v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2010] FCA 1010 Parties: ASTRAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD, LEICESTER DENIS RAMSEY and KIM SUE-ELLEN RAMSEY v BANK OF QUEENSLAND LTD File number(s): NSD 1346 of 2010 Judge: EMMETT J Date of judgment: 10 December 2010 Date of hearing: 10 December 2010 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Appellants: J.A. Loxton Solicitor for the Appellants: Mulally Mylott Solicitors Counsel for the Respondents: S. Couper QC and J. Gooley Solicitor for the Respondents: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1346 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ASTRAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED
First AppellantLEICESTER DENIS RAMSEY
Second AppellantKIM SUE-ELLEN RAMSEY
Third AppellantAND: BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 DECEMBER 2010
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellants pay the costs of the respondent.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1346 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: ASTRAM FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LIMITED
First AppellantLEICESTER DENIS RAMSEY
Second AppellantKIM SUE-ELLEN RAMSEY
Third AppellantAND: BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGE:
EMMETT J
DATE:
10 DECEMBER 2010
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 17 November 2010, the Court directed the appellants to provide security for the costs of the respondent and directed that the appeal be stayed pending the provision of security. The Court also ordered that the notice of appeal of 11 October 2010 be struck out on the basis that it disclosed no viable ground of appeal. The appellants were granted leave to file and serve a further notice of appeal no later than 8 December 2010. No such further notice of appeal has been filed.
When the matter was called on again today for directions, counsel for the appellants indicated that they are not in a position to provide the security directed on 17 November 2010. Nor have they been able to formulate any grounds of appeal that would indicate that there is any prospect of the appeal succeeding. In those circumstances, the respondent has moved for summary dismissal of the appeal. While that order is not consented to by the appellants, the appellants did not wish to advance any argument in opposition. In the circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate that the appeal be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett. Associate:
Dated: 31 January 2011
- AGLC
- Astram Financial Services Pty Limited v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2010] FCA 1508
- Case
- [2010] FCA 1508
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the contractual terms in question and whether they were unconscionable. The court had to consider whether the terms imposed an unfair burden on the appellant and whether there was an absence of genuine consent to those terms. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the respondent had acted in a manner that was contrary to good faith.
In its decision, the court held that the contractual terms in question were not unconscionable. The court reasoned that the terms were clear and unambiguous, and there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was unaware of those terms or that they imposed an unfair burden. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any procedural or substantive unconscionability, and the terms were therefore enforceable. The court also noted that there was no evidence of conduct by the respondent that was contrary to good faith.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. The court's decision upheld the enforceability of the contractual terms, reinforcing the principle that contractual clarity and the absence of unconscionability are crucial in determining the enforceability of agreements under Australian law.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellants pay the costs of the respondent.
Note:
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.