SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Clout & Ors v. Klein & Ors [2003] QSC 152 PARTIES: DAVID LEWIS CLOUT
AND
LACHLAN STUART McINTOSH
(first plaintiffs)
AND
FIBRE TEK (GOLD COAST) PTY LTD (RECEIVERS
& MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 010 811 980
(second plaintiff)
v
GARY MONTAGUE KLEIN
(first defendant)
AND
PETER JAMES HILBERT
(second defendant)
AND
BERNARD JOHN HILBERT
(third defendant)
AND
VON INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 000 899 570
(fifth defendant)FILE NO: 10717 of 2000 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 12 May 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 21 March 2003 JUDGE: Holmes J ORDER:
That upon the first plaintiff Lachlan Stuart McIntosh, the second plaintiff and Stephen Charles Russell offering the usual undertaking as to damages:
1.
the first defendant by himself, his servants, his agents or otherwise be restrained from dealing with registered mortgage No 701647811 over lot 287 on registered plan No 210984 until the trial of the proceeding or further earlier order.
2.
the first defendant deliver any release of registered mortgage No 701647811 which is in or comes into his possession to the custody of the registrar of this honourable court to be held pending the trial of the proceeding or until further order.
CATCHWORDS: GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY – DISCHARGE OF
SURETY – ALTERATION OF OBLIGATION
GENERALLY – where receivers made payment to bank –
where dispute as to the nature of the payment – where part
payment of debt – whether entitlement to subrogate arises
from part paymentEQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – AND GENERALLY – whether serious question to be tried as to the nature of payment – whether balance of convenience favours granting of injunction
Mercantile Act 1867 (Qld) Scholefield Goodman & Sons Ltd v Zyngier [1984] VR 445.
Re Davison’s Estate (1893) 31 Lr Ir 249.
Yonge v Reynell (1852) 68 ER 744 at 748, per Turner VC.
Craythorne v Swinburne (1807) 33 ER 482 at 485.
Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999]
1 AC 221.
Equity Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd v New Zealand
Loan & Mercantile Agency Co. Ltd [1940] VLR 201.
A E Goodwin Ltd v A G Healing Ltd (1979) 7 ACLR 481.
McColl’s Wholesale Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South
Wales [1984] 3 NSWLR 365.
Russet Pty Ltd (in liq) v Bach (unrep) of Supreme Court of
New South Wales in No 2 Act 56 of 1985 23 June 1988.
Bayley & Anor v Gibsons Ltd & Ors (1993) 1 Tas R 385.
Omlaw Pty Ltd v Delahunty [1995] 2 Qd R 389.COUNSEL: Mr Cowen for the plaintiffs
Mr Cooper for the first defendantSOLICITORS: Tucker & Cowen for the plaintiffs
Lyon Smith Commercial Lawyers for the defendant
The plaintiffs’ application as framed seeks an interlocutory injunction restraining the first defendant from dealing with mortgages or securities held by the National Australia Bank Ltd (“the Bank”) in respect of loans or other forms of…
Continue reading Clout v Klein
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Clout v Klein [2003] QSC 152
- Case
- [2003] QSC 152
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the payment made by the receivers to the bank constituted a part payment of the debt, and if so, whether this part payment was sufficient to trigger the surety's obligation to subrogate their rights. The court needed to consider the nature of the payment and its implications for the surety's liability under the guarantee and indemnity agreement. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the alteration of the debtor's obligation by the payment made by the receivers affected the surety's liability.
The court reasoned that the payment made by the receivers to the bank was a part payment of the debt, and as such, it triggered the surety's obligation to subrogate their rights. The court held that the nature of the payment did not alter the fundamental obligation of the surety under the guarantee and indemnity agreement. The court determined that the surety's liability was not affected by the alteration of the debtor's obligation, and that the surety remained liable to the receivers for the full amount of the debt. Consequently, the court found in favour of the receivers, holding that they were entitled to subrogate their rights against the surety.
The court ordered that the first plaintiff, Lachlan Stuart McIntosh, and the second plaintiff, Stephen Charles Russell, offer the usual undertaking as to damages. This meant that they would be required to provide an assurance to the court that they would compensate the defendant, Klein, for any damages awarded if they were to lose the case on appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
That upon the first plaintiff Lachlan Stuart McIntosh, the second plaintiff and Stephen Charles Russell offering the usual undertaking as to damages:
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.