Legal Research
Cases
French v Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd

French v Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 14 December 2006 43 min read

Contents

On this page

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 4139 of 2002

WALTER MURDOCH FRENCH
	Appellant
v.
QUEENSLAND PREMIER MINES PTY LTD & ORS	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., CALLAWAY and REDLICH, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 and 8 March 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 December 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 287

---

REAL PROPERTY – Mortgage – Separate mortgage and loan agreement – Registered transfer of mortgage – Whether s.62 of Land Title Act (Qld) operates to vest in transferee the right to recover monies under loan agreement – Whether right to recover monies under loan agreement is a “right to recover a debt or enforce a liability under the mortgage” – Whether covenant to pay in mortgage imposes separate obligation from covenant to pay in loan agreement.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Whether “right to recover a debt or enforce a liability under the mortgage” includes right to recover debt or enforce liability secured by mortgage – Presumption that meaning to be attributed to every word of statutory provision – Overriding principle that precise terms of provision will govern.

WORDS AND PHRASES – “Under the mortgage”

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P.J. Bick, Q.C., with Mr D.K. Shirrefs	Norton Gledhill
For the Respondents	Dr C.L. Pannam, Q.C., with Mr M.S. Goldblatt	Oakley Thompson & Co.

MAXWELL, P.:

The issue which arises on this appeal is as follows: where a mortgage of Torrens land secures the repayment of advances made under a separate loan agreement, and the instrument of mortgage contains a covenant to pay the amounts due under the loan agreement, does the registration of a transfer of the mortgage vest in the transferee the right of recovery of the debt under the loan agreement?

The issue arises in the following way. There were, in fact, two loans, under separate loan agreements, and two mortgages. Under the first loan agreement (dated 30 October 1989), the lender advanced $410,000 to Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd (“QPM”) and Mr and Mrs Beckinsale as joint debtors. Under the second loan agreement (dated 24 November 1989), the lender advanced $560,000 to QPM as sole debtor. The respective liabilities of the debtors were secured by two “all moneys” mortgages successively executed by QPM as mortgagor over different parcels of land.

The appellant, French, was not the original lender or mortgagee. He took an assignment of the loans, and the mortgages securing them, from the original lender and mortgagee in 1992. He subsequently assigned the mortgages to Marminta Pty Ltd (“Marminta”), a company associated with QPM and Mr and Mrs Beckinsale.[1] The transfer of the mortgages was registered in January 2004.
[1]French assigned the mortgages as a result of litigation in Queensland, which is described in paragraphs [72-76] below.

French contends that the loan agreements were unaffected by the transfer of the mortgages. Accordingly, he seeks to recover amounts due under the loan agreements. The trial Judge dismissed French’s claims, holding that by operation of s.62 of the Land Title…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read French v Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd 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: [2006] VSCA 287
Decision Date: 14 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the Queensland Court of Appeal in French v Queensland Premier Mines Pty Ltd involved a complex interaction between a mortgage and a separate loan agreement, specifically focusing on whether the transfer of a mortgage vested in the transferee the right to recover monies under the loan agreement. The court was tasked with interpreting section 62 of the Land Title Act (Qld) to determine whether the right to recover monies under the loan agreement was a "right to recover a debt or enforce a liability under the mortgage." Furthermore, the court had to ascertain whether the covenant to pay in the mortgage imposed a separate obligation from the covenant to pay in the loan agreement.

The court examined the statutory language of section 62, emphasizing the principle that every word of a statutory provision should be given meaning. It held that the phrase "under the mortgage" in the context of section 62 encompasses the right to recover a debt or enforce a liability secured by the mortgage. The court found that the right to recover monies under the loan agreement was indeed a right to recover a debt or enforce a liability under the mortgage, thereby vesting in the transferee of the mortgage the right to enforce the loan agreement. The court concluded that the covenant to pay in the mortgage and the covenant to pay in the loan agreement were not separate obligations but were intertwined under the mortgage's security.

The court's interpretation was based on the overarching principle that the precise terms of the statutory provision should govern. This interpretation allowed the transferee of the mortgage to assert claims under both the mortgage and the loan agreement, thereby resolving the dispute in favor of the transferee. The court's decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation in understanding the scope of rights and obligations under land title legislation.

Orders