Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wright - [2002] VSC 109

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5690 of 1998

EQUUSCORP PTY LIMITED (formerly EQUUSCORP FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED) (ACN 006 012 344)	Plaintiff
v
DONALD WRIGHT and JULIE EILEEN WRIGHT	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3, 4 and 5 April 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 April 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wright
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 109

---

Contract – guarantee – whether executed by guarantor.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P.W. Lithgow	Mark Leaker
For the Second Defendant	Mr B.R. FitzGerald	Clayton Utz

HIS HONOUR:

The defendants, Donald Wright and Julie Eileen Wright, were married in England in 1966. They migrated to Australia in 1972 with their two children. In 1989, when occurred the events with which I am concerned, they were living together in Hereford Road, Lilydale. Theirs was not a happy marriage. Mrs Wright had left her husband and lived in New Zealand following a serious assault in about 1978. She had returned after about a year and they continued to live together under the same roof until they separated in March 1990. They were divorced about 10 years ago.

In 1983 a company, Merdeka Pty Ltd (“Merdeka”), was established or acquired with Mr and Mrs Wright as directors and shareholders. Merdeka was the trustee of the Donald Wright Family Trust. Mrs Wright said, and I accept, that her husband was the moving spirit behind Merdeka and its business. He made the commercial and financial decisions and did not welcome suggestions from her. From about 1980 to early 1986 she was employed by Merdeka as a secretary and receptionist at its Bayswater office but she had no other involvement in its affairs. The Wrights were also directors of another company, Cooloola Sales (Queensland) Pty Ltd (“Cooloola”). In 1989 Merdeka carried on the business of marketing blocks of land in a sub-division called Cooloola Village near Rainbow Beach in Queensland. I was told that these sales were achieved by a sale of a lot from Cooloola to Merdeka which then commonly on-sold the land to a purchaser under a terms contract. In late 1989 Merdeka approached the plaintiff, Equuscorp Pty Ltd, then called Equuscorp Financial Services Ltd, for finance under a factoring arrangement. Equuscorp and Merdeka entered into an agreement which is contained in a letter of offer with a signed acceptance and a Discount Deed each dated 2 October 1989. The originals of these documents are Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 in this proceeding. Under this agreement Merdeka assigned contracts to Equuscorp for a price with the consequence that the purchasers became obliged to make payment, not to the vendor, but to Equuscorp.

Within twelve months defaults occurred under this agreement when a purchaser, Kovacs, failed to pay to Equuscorp instalments due in September and October 1990. By April 1991 a number of purchasers had defaulted and Equuscorp, as it was entitled under the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wright

Details

AGLC: Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wright [2002] VSC 109
Case: [2002] VSC 109
Decision Date: 12 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Wright was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where Equuscorp Pty Ltd sought to enforce a personal guarantee provided by Wright against a debt owed by a company. Wright contested the enforceability of the guarantee, arguing that it had not been properly executed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the personal guarantee provided by Wright was valid and binding. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the guarantee had been properly executed as a deed, which is a requirement for such guarantees under Australian law. The court examined whether the necessary formalities for the execution of a deed had been met, such as the presence of witnesses and the use of appropriate terminology.

The court found that the personal guarantee had not been properly executed as a deed. The guarantee did not contain the requisite language and did not meet the formal requirements necessary for a document to be considered a deed. The court also noted that there was no evidence that the guarantor had intended to execute the guarantee as a deed. As a result, the guarantee was not valid and enforceable against Wright. The court dismissed Equuscorp's claim, holding that the guarantee was not binding due to its improper execution.

No further orders were made by the court, as the dismissal of the claim was the primary outcome of the proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to the formalities required for the execution of guarantees to ensure their enforceability.

Orders