Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson - [2018] NSWSC 1756

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson & Anor [2018] NSWSC 1756
Hearing dates: 6 November 2018
Decision date: 16 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Rees J
Decision:
Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against Hugh Williamson in the amount of $403,863.01, plus costs.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Judgment for plaintiff — Enforcement of settlement —Defendant submits that possible judgment in other proceedings will enable payment of settlement — Application brought in District Court to set aside settlement — No application for stay of Supreme Court proceedings — Judgment entered pursuant to settlement.
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 29, 67, 73
Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), Part 4A
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Howard [2018] NSWSC 383
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson [2017] NSWSC 939
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson [2017] NSWSC 939
Clarke and Ors v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 516
Edwards v Trapman [2014] NSWSC 1089
Gorczynski v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited [2016] NSWCA 170
Grant v Grant [2012] NSWSC 725
Grave v Blazevic Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 329
In the matter of Webuildem Pty Ltd and In the matter of Maroun Investments Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 708
Jingalong Pty Ltd v Todds [2015] NSWCA 7
Mills v Futhem Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 166
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd (Plaintiff)
H. Williamson (First Defendant)
Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P.M. Maiorana – Plaintiff
H. Williamson – First Defendant – Self Represented
Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) – No appearance
Solicitors:
Turks Legal

File Number(s): 2017/156318

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an application by Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd (the Bank) for judgment to be entered against Hugh Williamson, by reason of a Settlement Agreement entered into more than a year ago. The Bank seeks judgment for $400,000, being the monies to be paid by Mr Williamson under the Settlement Agreement, together with interest which has accrued and legal costs which have been incurred since the date of the agreement. The Bank also seeks its costs of the motion.

Facts

On 19 August 2010, the Bank commenced these proceedings against Mr Williamson and Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed) in the Supreme Court of Victoria. I gratefully adopt the summary of the procedural history of this matter since by Ward CJ in Eq in Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson [2017] NSWSC 939.
Relevantly, the Bank claimed monies and interest due under a loan agreement entered into by Mr Williamson in connection with an investment made by him in a managed investment scheme, referred to as the Great Southern Plantations 2004 Project Managed Investment Scheme. The loan was for $282,000. The Bank acquired its…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 1756
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd brought an action against Williamson in the District Court, seeking a judgment for breach of contract and for the recovery of moneys owing. Williamson argued that a possible judgment in other proceedings would enable payment of the settlement. The District Court was tasked with determining the enforceability of the settlement agreement under the circumstances presented. The primary issue was whether the settlement agreement could be enforced despite the defendant’s assertion that a judgment in other proceedings would enable him to pay the settlement. The court had to consider the principle of finality in settlement agreements and the circumstances under which such agreements may be set aside. It also needed to assess whether there were any grounds to justify setting aside the settlement agreement.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the settlement and found that the defendant had not provided sufficient grounds to justify setting aside the agreement. It was noted that settlement agreements are generally binding and final, and parties should be held to their agreements unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of finality in litigation and found that there were no grounds to disturb the settlement. The defendant's reliance on a potential judgment in other proceedings was not considered a sufficient basis to set aside the agreement. The court held that the settlement was valid and enforceable, and the defendant was required to fulfil his obligations under the agreement.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Williamson's application to set aside the settlement agreement. The judgment was entered in favour of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd, enforcing the terms of the settlement. Williamson was ordered to pay the agreed amount to the bank within the stipulated timeframe. The court's decision underscored the principle that settlement agreements are binding and should not be lightly set aside. The final orders of the court confirmed the enforceability of the settlement agreement and directed Williamson to comply with the terms of the settlement.

Orders