Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd v Edmonds

Barrington Winstanley Group Pty Ltd, a finance broker, was retained by the third defendant in relation to a proposed refinancing transaction. The first and second defendants executed guarantees of the third defendant's obligations under the agreement. A dispute arose over whether a service fee became payable under the agreement. Subsequently, the defendants executed a deed acknowledging the plaintiff's right to the service fee, which contained an undertaking to pay the service fee plus interest. The second defendant later claimed that the deed was executed due to abuse and intimidation by the plaintiff. The first and second defendants denied liability to pay the service fee plus interest. The court was required to determine whether the execution of the deed was procured by unfair or illegitimate pressure and whether the defendants were precluded by estoppel by deed from asserting that there was no amount secured by the charge.

The court held that the execution of the deed was not procured by unfair or illegitimate pressure. The court found that the second defendant was a sophisticated businessman and was not coerced into executing the deed. The court also held that the defendants were not precluded by estoppel by deed from asserting that there was no amount secured by the charge. The court found that enforcement of the charge was not an action on the deed to enforce rights arising under the deed. Therefore, the defendants were not precluded from asserting that no moneys became due and payable under the agreement such as to be secured by the charge. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the charge to recover the amount due under the deed.

The court held that the first and second defendants were obliged to pay the service fee plus interest in accordance with the deed. The court found that the defendants were bound by the terms of the deed, which acknowledged the plaintiff's right to the service fee and contained an undertaking to pay the service fee plus interest. The court held that the defendants were not entitled to rely on the fact that the service fee did not become due and payable under the agreement, as they had acknowledged the plaintiff's right to the service fee in the deed. The court ordered the first and second defendants to pay the service fee plus interest to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the deed.