Anfrank Nominees Pty Ltd v Connell (1989) 1 ACSR 365
Hoyt's Pty Ltd v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133
Marks v Hunt Bros (Sydney) Pty Ltd (1958) SR(NSW) 380
Taylor v Johnson (1982) 151 CLR 422
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
Westwind Air Charter Pty Ltd v Hawker de Havilland Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 71

Case(s) also cited:

Archer v Hudson (1844) 49 ER 1180
Bank of New South Wales v Rogers (1941) 65 CLR 42
Butt v McDonald (1896) 7 QLJ 68
CF Est v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1989) VR 608
Clark & Co Pty Ltd v Owen (1915) VLR 23
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18
Creamoata Ltd v Rice Equalisiation Association Ltd (1953) 89 CLR 286
D Galmbos & Son Pty Ltd v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10
Evans Deacon & Co Pty Ltd v Kaiser Engineers & Constructors Inc [1968] QdR 378
Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Credits (Finance) Pty Ltd v Shipton Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 2054; 19 May 1977
Hamilton v Chapman (1902) QWN 86
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker [1993] 11 WAR 26
Hurley v McDonalds Australia Ltd (2000) 22 ATPR 41-741
Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113
Johnstone v Commerce Consolidated Pty Ltd (1976) VR 724
L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394
Lisciando v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 69 FCR 180
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621
McKay v Gillespie (1885) 11 VLR 835
Midland Bank Plc v Shephard [1988] 3 All ER 17
Miles v Bull [1969] 1 QB 258
O'Neil v Geddes (1971) 2 NSW LR 143;
Phillips v Hutchinson [1946] VLR 270
Powell v Powell [1900] 1 Ch 243
Riverplate Properties Ltd v Paul [1975] Ch 133
Siglin v Choules [2002] WASCA 9
State Bank of Victoria v Parry [1989] WAR 240
Symon & Co v Palmer Stores (1903) Ltd [1912] 1 KB 259
Tranchita v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2001] WASCA 265
United Dominions Corp (Jamaica) Ltd v Sinclair (1969) AC 340
White v Johnson (1886) 8 ALT 53
Whitfeld v De Laruet &…

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 First Industry Corp v Goh

Details

AGLC: First Industry Corp v Goh [2002] WASC 143
Case: [2002] WASC 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

First Industry Corp sought summary judgment against Bean San Goh for the repayment of two loans totalling US$481,230, plus interest at 10% per annum compounded daily. The loans, made pursuant to two written agreements, were due for repayment on 31 December 2001 but were not repaid. The first defendant argued several defences, including an application for rectification of the contracts and claims under the Trade Practices Act. The court rejected all defences, finding no basis for rectification or any variation of the contracts. The first defendant's claim under the Trade Practices Act was also dismissed as there was no allegation of unconscionable conduct at the time of the loan agreements. The first defendant's argument for set-off or counterclaim was considered insufficient as it did not impeach the plaintiff's title to the claim. Finally, the court found that the "Purpose and Security" clause in the loan agreements did not impact the outcome of the application. The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the first defendant.

Orders