Legal Research
Cases
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson

Link copied

Case Copied 17 July 2017 50 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson; In the matter of Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 939
Hearing dates: 3 July 2017
Decision date: 17 July 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1   Dismiss the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment, without prejudice to its ability to make any further such application in the future.
2   Direct the first defendant to serve on the plaintiff any proposed further amended defence to the plaintiff’s claim by 4pm on 18 August 2017.
3   Relist the matter for directions before Ward CJ in Eq at 9.30am on 23 August 2017, with a view to ascertaining whether any application by the first defendant for leave to amend in accordance with any proposed further amended defence served pursuant to [2] above is opposed by the plaintiff and, if so, to make directions for the hearing of any such amendment application.
4   Refer the parties to court annexed mediation on or before 22 August 2017.
5   Reserve the question of costs.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 12
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 91-92
Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Vic) s 5(2)(b)(iii)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), Pt 4A
Cases Cited: Air Services Australia v Zarb [1998] NSWCA 7
Bendigo and Australia Bank Limited v Ling [2016] SADC 34
Clarke (as trustee of the Clarke Family Trust) v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liquidation) [2014] VSC 516
Cockell v Taylor (1852) 15 Beav 103; (1852) 51 ER 475
Coopers Brewery Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 738
Cosmos E-Commerce Pty Ltd v Sue Bidwell & Associates Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 81
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
H Clark (Doncaster) Ltd v Wilkinson [1965] Ch 694; [1965] 1 All ER 934
Jeans v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd (2003) 204 ALR 327; [2003] FCAFC 309
Khouri v National Australia Bank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 987
Klein v National Australia Bank Ltd [2016] VSCA 144
Mangles v Dixon (1852) 10 ER 278 at 290; (1852) 3 HL Cas 702
Nadinic v Drinkwater [2017] NSWCA 114
National Australia Bank Ltd v Thirup [2011] NSWSC 911
Re Harry Simpson & Company Pty Limited and The Companies Act 1936 [1964-5] NSWR 603
Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1
Redman v Permanent Trustee Co of NSW (1916) 22 CLR 84; [1916] HCA 47
SLE Worldwide Australia Pty Ltd v Wyatt Gallagher Bassett Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 816
Southern British National Trust Ltd v Pither (1937) 57 CLR 89; [1937] HCA 28
State of…

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: [2017] NSWSC 939
Decision Date: 17 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson involved a claim for summary judgment brought by the bank against the defendant, Williamson. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The bank sought summary judgment on a claim for unpaid debts under a loan agreement. The primary issue for the court was whether the bank had established its case on the balance of probabilities, thereby entitling it to judgment as a matter of law.

The court examined the documentation provided by the bank to determine if the debt was undisputed and if there were any genuine issues of fact that required a trial. The bank argued that the terms of the loan agreement were clear, and the debt was undisputed. Williamson, on the other hand, contended that there were factual disputes that necessitated a trial. The court weighed the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the admissibility and sufficiency of the bank's evidence to establish the claim.

The court found that the bank had adequately demonstrated that the debt was undisputed and that there were no genuine issues of fact to be resolved. The evidence provided by the bank was deemed sufficient to meet the standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the court granted the application for summary judgment in favour of the bank. The decision was based on the bank's ability to clearly establish its claim and the absence of any factual disputes that would require a trial.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the bank and against Williamson for the amount claimed, plus interest and costs. This ruling confirmed the bank's entitlement to recover the outstanding debt as per the terms of the loan agreement.

Orders