Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Jeff Manny (No 2)
Case
•
[2013] ACTSC 143
•26 July 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Jeff Manny (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 143
[2013] ACTSC 143
26 July 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited brought proceedings against Jeff Manny in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, seeking possession of a property located at 42 Barber Crescent, Flynn, as security for a mortgage on the property. The mortgage was provided as security for a home loan and an investment loan, and the defendant's failure to make repayments on the home loan triggered a default event. The plaintiff gave notice of the default event, and as the defendant did not remedy the default within the required 30 days, the mortgage agreement entitled the plaintiff to take possession of the property.
The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property under the mortgage agreement. The court held that the conditions for possession under the mortgage agreement were met, as the defendant had not remedied the default within the 30-day period after receiving notice of the default event. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property.
In its orders, the court granted judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the land, struck out the defendant's counterclaim, and ordered that the defendant is not permitted to file any additional pleading for his counterclaim without the leave of the court. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property under the mortgage agreement. The court held that the conditions for possession under the mortgage agreement were met, as the defendant had not remedied the default within the 30-day period after receiving notice of the default event. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property.
In its orders, the court granted judgment for the plaintiff for possession of the land, struck out the defendant's counterclaim, and ordered that the defendant is not permitted to file any additional pleading for his counterclaim without the leave of the court. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Mortgages & Security Interests
-
Default Event
-
Remedies for Breach
-
Specific Performance
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Manny v Australian Postal Corporation [2025] ACTSC 148
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Manny v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
[2014] ACTCA 42
Manny v University of Canberra (No 2)
[2025] ACTSC 147
Manny v Australian Postal Corporation
[2025] ACTSC 148
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
Kevern v Marshall
[2012] ACTSC 9
Galovac Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory
[2010] ACTSC 132
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Manny (No 4)
[2013] ACTSC 236