Buckeridge v Mercantile Credits Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Murphy, Aickin, Wilson and Brennan JJ.

BUCKERIDGE v. MERCANTILE CREDITS LIMITED

(1981) 147 CLR 654

25 November 1981

Guarantee

Guarantee—Surety—Discharge—Guarantee of loan to company secured by mortgage over land—Additional security of debenture charge—Default by principal debtor under both securities—Appointment of receiver and manager under debenture—No provision in mortgage for appointment of receiver and manager—Business then conducted at a loss—Further loans by principal creditor to receiver and manager—Later sale of land and business—Deficit of principal and interest—Liability of guarantors—Whether for whole of deficit including receiver and manager's losses, fees and borrowings—Whether guarantors entitled to complain against failure to pursue power of sale under mortgage.

Decisions


November 25.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
GIBBS C.J. I would dismiss this appeal. I am in general agreement with the reasons for judgment that had been prepared by my brother Aickin and by my brother Brennan and could not usefully add anything to them. (at p660)

MURPHY J. I agree with Brennan J. The appeal should be dismissed. (at p660)

AICKIN J. This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia which allowed an appeal by the present respondent from the decision of Lavan S.P.J. (at p661)

2. In September 1971, the respondent agreed to advance a sum not exceeding $300,000 at an interest rate of 13 1/2 per cent to Melbourne Hotel Pty. Ltd. ("Melbourne Hotel"). As primary security for the loan an instrument of mortgage of the hotel premises was executed on 23 September 1971 by Melbourne Hotel and it was duly registered. Pursuant to that instrument the freehold title to land belonging to Melbourne Hotel upon which a hotel business was conducted by it was mortgaged in the respondent's favour. (at p661)

3. The mortgage instrument contemplated that the principal sum was to be advanced by instalments over a two year period; Melbourne Hotel covenanted to pay the interest on the sums advanced by 24 monthly payments and thereafter to pay 23 equal monthly instalments of principal and interest with a final instalment of $271,887 which became due on 5 October 1975. (at p661)

4. As a further condition of the loan each of the present appellants was required to enter into a deed of guarantee under which they jointly and severally guaranteed the due and punctual payment by Melbourne Hotel of the principal sum advanced to it by the respondent and interest thereon. That guarantee which was also executed on 23 September 1971 contained the following recitals and provisions:
"NOW THIS GUARANTEE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the premises and in the performance of the said condition and in consideration of the Mortgagee at the request of the Guarantors making the said loan to the Mortgagor the Guarantors DO and each of them DOTH HEREBY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY GUARANTEE to the Mortgagee the due and punctual payment by the Mortgagors of the said principal sum and interest in the manner in the said Mortgage provided AND IT…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Buckeridge v Mercantile Credits Ltd 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
[1981] HCA 62
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered the dispute between Buckeridge and Mercantile Credits Ltd concerning the validity of a mortgage.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the mortgage was void for champerty and maintenance, and whether the mortgage was invalid due to the doctrine of undue influence or unconscionable dealing.

The Court held that the mortgage was not void for champerty or maintenance, as the agreement did not involve the improper stirring up of litigation. Regarding undue influence and unconscionable dealing, the Court found that while there was a disparity in bargaining power, the appellant had received independent legal advice, and there was no evidence of unconscionable conduct by the respondent. The principles applied focused on the nature of the agreement, the presence of independent advice, and the absence of coercion or unfair advantage.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.