CKM (Mortgages) Limited v McDonnell

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read
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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2010] VSC 576
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved CKM (Mortgages) Limited, as the plaintiff, and McDonnell, the defendant, with an appeal from a decision made by an Associate Justice. The dispute centred around the enforcement of a mortgage and the refusal to allow a counterclaim. A settlement had been reached, which included a release from the counterclaim, but the plaintiff sought to enforce the mortgage based on the original terms. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was estopped from enforcing the mortgage due to a previous judgment and whether the issue was res judicata. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the release from the counterclaim in the settlement terms was valid and binding.

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.