Douglas Morris Investments Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

This case involved an application to the High Court of Australia by Douglas Morris Investments Pty Ltd (the applicant) against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (the respondent). The dispute concerned the enforceability of securities held by the Bank, even if the Bank's claim for a money judgment was statute-barred. The applicant argued that the Bank's securities should also be considered unenforceable.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Bank's securities remained intact and enforceable, with the assistance of the court, notwithstanding that its claim for a money judgment against the applicant was barred by the *Limitation of Actions Act (Queensland) 1974*. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of sections 10 and 26 of that Act, and whether equitable relief sought by the Bank fell within the exclusions of section 10(6)(b) or was brought back by analogy.

The applicant contended that the Bank's claim was an action on a speciality under section 10(3) of the Act, or alternatively, an action on a contract under section 10(1). The applicant argued that section 10(6)(b), which excludes claims to equitable relief, should not prevent the statute from applying by analogy to the Bank's claim for possession of shares held as security. The applicant submitted that the Full Court's decision, allowing the Bank to enforce its securities despite the money judgment being statute-barred, was a startling and inconsistent result.

The High Court was asked to determine the precise nature of the relief granted by the Full Court and how it interacted with the provisions of the *Limitation of Actions Act*. The applicant specifically pointed to the orders made by Mr Justice Dowsett and subsequently varied by the Full Court as the basis of their challenge.