Brighten Pty Limited ACN 122 082 393 v Bank of Western Australia Limited ACN 050 494 454

Case [2011] NSWSC 816


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Brighten Pty Limited ACN 122 082 393 -v- Bank of Western Australia Limited ACN 050 494 454 [2011] NSWSC 816
Hearing dates:1 February 2011 & 16 March 2011
Decision date: 16 March 2011
Jurisdiction:Equity Division - Commercial List
Before: Hammerschlag J
Decision:

Judgment for the cross-claimant against each of the first cross-defendant, second cross-defendant and third cross-defendant in the amount of $13,583,412.13

Catchwords: CLAIM ON GUARANTEE - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bank of Western Australia - Cross-Claimant
Brighten Pty Limited - First Cross-Defendant
Noble Growth Investment Limited - Second Cross-Defendant
Michael Wilson Kwok - Third Cross-Defendant
Representation: Counsel:
P.J. Dowdy - Cross-Claimant
T.J. Morahan - Third Cross-Defendant
Solicitors:
Gadens Lawyers - Cross-Claimant
Jackson Lalic Lawyers - Third Cross-Defendant
File Number(s):2009/298763

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. The cross-claimant bank lent and advanced monies to the second cross-defendant ("Noble") secured by mortgage over real property and a fixed and floating charge. As well, Noble's obligations were guaranteed by the first cross-defendant ("Brighten") and the third cross-defendant ("Mr Kwok") under written guarantees dated 18 December 2006 respectively.

  1. The bank sues each of the cross-defendants for the balance owing under the facility.

  1. Neither Brighten nor Noble has appeared to defend the claims against them.

  1. Mr Kwok initially raised a defence that a proper demand had not been made under his guarantee. This led the bank to amend its Commercial List Cross-Claim Statement so as to rely on a subsequent demand. It did not, however, abandon its claim based on its original demand.

  1. The bank must of course pay Mr Kwok's costs, if any, thrown away by the amendment.

  1. After the amendment had been granted, Mr Kwok, for whom Mr Morahan of counsel appears, accepted that he has no defence to the cross-claimant's claim.

  1. Each of the elements of the claim against each of the cross-defendants has been established by affidavits read and documents tendered. Quantum as at 14 March 2011 has been established by lender's certificates given under the relevant provisions of the facility agreement with Noble, Brighten's guarantee and Mr Kwok's guarantee respectively, in the amount of $13,583,412.13.

  1. There will be judgment for the cross-claimant against each of the first cross-defendant, second cross-defendant and third cross-defendant in the amount of $13,583.412.13 together with interest pursuant to s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) at the prescribed rate from 16 March 2011, the date upon which this judgment takes effect.

  1. The cross-defendants are to pay the cross-claimant's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis, save that the cross-claimant is to pay the third cross-defendant's costs, if any, thrown away as a consequence of the amendment of its Commercial List Cross-Claim Statement made on 16 March 2011.

  1. The exhibits are to be returned.

**********

Details
AGLC
Brighten Pty Limited ACN 122 082 393 v Bank of Western Australia Limited ACN 050 494 454 [2011] NSWSC 816
Case
[2011] NSWSC 816
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brighten Pty Limited, a company, brought a claim against Bank of Western Australia Limited, a bank, over a guarantee. The dispute arose out of a financial arrangement where the bank had provided credit facilities to Brighten, secured by a guarantee. The central issue in the case was whether the bank could lawfully enforce the guarantee given by Brighten in the event of a default on the credit facilities.

The court was required to determine the validity and enforceability of the guarantee. This involved examining the terms of the guarantee agreement, the nature of the credit facilities, and whether there were any legal impediments to the bank enforcing the guarantee. The court also needed to consider whether there were any contractual or legal defences that Brighten could raise against the enforcement of the guarantee.

The court found that the guarantee was valid and enforceable. It held that the terms of the guarantee agreement were clear and unambiguous, and there were no defects in the way the guarantee was executed. The court also found that the credit facilities were properly provided and documented. Consequently, the court ruled that the bank was entitled to enforce the guarantee as per the terms of the agreement. The court dismissed Brighten's defences and determined that the bank could proceed with enforcing the guarantee.

The court ordered that Brighten pay the bank the amount due under the guarantee, together with interest and costs. The court further directed that the bank could take any necessary steps to recover the debt from Brighten as per the terms of the guarantee.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.