| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION
No. 6313 of 2008
| BETWEEN: | |
| CKM (MORTGAGES) LIMITED (ACN 089 263 310) | Plaintiff |
| and | |
| NADIA DIANE McDONNELL and PETER JOSEPH McDONNELL | Defendants |
| AND BETWEEN: | |
| NADIA DIANE McDONNELL and PETER JOSEPH McDONNELL | Plaintiffs by Counterclaim |
| and | |
| CKM (MORTGAGES) LIMITED (ACN 089 263 310) | Defendant by Counterclaim |
| and | |
| RORY JOSEPH McDONNELL and YORK STREET CAPITAL PTY LTD (ACN 114 404 689) | Third Parties by Counterclaim |
---
JUDGE: | OSBORN J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 November 2010 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 30 November 2010 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | CKM (Mortgages) Limited v McDonnell | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2010] VSC 576 | |
---
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from Associate Justice – Leave to counterclaim refused – Release from counterclaim contained in terms of settlement – Issue estoppel from judgment previously entered – Plaintiffs right to enforce mortgage pursuant to terms not subject to counterclaim - Observations as to res judicata – Appeal dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim | Mr D Williams SC with Mr S Woolley | Hall & Wilcox |
| For the Defendants and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim | Mr M Stirling | S V Law |
| For the Third Parties by Counterclaim | No appearance |
HIS HONOUR:
This is an appeal from orders of Associate Justice Zammit dismissing an application for leave to file and serve a new counter claim in a proceeding in which final orders have previously been made pursuant to terms of settlement. There is some urgency in the matter because the plaintiff has taken possession of the defendant's property and proposes to sell it as a mortgagee next week. Accordingly, I propose to give an ex tempore judgment today.
The background to the proceeding is set out in paragraphs 1-13 of Associate Justice Zammit's judgment:
1Nadia and Peter McDonnell were married. At the time when this claim was settled Peter was 79 years old and Nadia 75 years old. Peter was suffering from dementia and his daughter, Patricia Tranter, was appointed as litigation guardian. Peter died on 4 April 2010 after Terms of Settlement were signed and approved by the Court.
2Peter and Nadia were the registered proprietors of a number of properties including 390‑392 Hampton Street, Hampton Victoria. They received rent from the tenants at the Hampton Street property. No monies were owed in early 2007 with respect to the Hampton Street property. In January 2007 the Hampton Street property was mortgaged to CKM (Mortgages) Limited to secure a loan to Nadia and Peter in the sum of $759,000. Nadia and Peter’s son, Rory McDonnell, was instrumental in organising the loan and the benefit of the loan was for Rory so that he could pursue a development in South Australia known as “Wirrina Cove”. Nadia and Peter allege that all contact with CKM relating to the loan of $795,000 was by Rory. They also allege that they never received the benefit of the loan and that the benefit was for Rory and York…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read CKM (Mortgages) Limited v McDonnell 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] VSC 576
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the plaintiff was not estopped from enforcing the mortgage because the right to enforce the mortgage was not subject to the counterclaim. The court reasoned that the terms of the mortgage and the right to enforce it were distinct from the counterclaim, and thus the release of the counterclaim did not affect the plaintiff's right to enforce the mortgage. The court also observed that the issue was not res judicata as it did not involve the same parties or the same cause of action as the previous judgment. The court found that the release from the counterclaim in the settlement terms was valid and binding, and the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the mortgage as per the original terms.
Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Associate Justice. The court confirmed that the plaintiff's right to enforce the mortgage was not affected by the release from the counterclaim in the settlement terms, and the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the mortgage as per the original terms. The court's decision emphasised the importance of distinguishing between the right to enforce a mortgage and any related counterclaims, and the binding nature of settlement terms in releasing counterclaims.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
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.