Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Karamihos (No 2)

In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd was the plaintiff and appellant, while Karamihos was the defendant and respondent. The dispute concerned the inclusion of enforcement expenses, specifically those incurred by the financier under a mortgage, within the judgment amount awarded to the bank.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the bank was entitled to have its enforcement expenses, as contemplated by the mortgage documents, included in the judgment sum ordered against the defendants. This question arose in the context of consequential orders following earlier judgments.

The Court of Appeal considered the terms of the mortgage and the relevant legislation. It reasoned that the mortgage agreement expressly provided for the recovery of enforcement expenses by the financier. The court applied the principle that parties are generally bound by the terms of their contractual agreements, provided those terms are not otherwise unlawful or unenforceable. Consequently, the court found that the bank was entitled to recover these expenses as part of the judgment amount.

The court made several orders, including granting possession of land to the plaintiff, entering judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants for $1,421,482.52 inclusive of interest, and ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs. In separate proceedings, judgment was entered for the defendant, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal proceedings.