Legal Research
Cases
Guardian Mortgages v Miller

Guardian Mortgages v Miller

Link copied

Case Copied 16 December 2004 69 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Guardian Mortgages v Miller [2004] NSWSC 1236

HEARING DATE(S): 16/11/04 - 19/11/04, 23/11/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

DECISION: The parties are to provide short minutes of order to his Honour.

CATCHWORDS: Proceedings concerning properties - plaintiff seeking order for possession -order for judicial sale - cross-claim for relief against forfeiture - mortgage - resale of mortgaged property - bridging loan - caveat - unjust or unconscionable transaction - misleading or deceptive conduct - clog on equity of redemption - Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW s7 - Consumer Credit Code (NSW) s 70 - Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 57(2)(b) - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 51AA, s 51AB, s 51AC, s 52, s 53 - Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CA, s 12CB, s 12CC - Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 42 and s 43.

LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CA,
s 12CB, s 12CC
Consumer Credit Code (NSW) s 70
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) s 7
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 42 and s 43
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) s 57(2)(b)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 51AA, s 51AB, s 51AC, s 52, s 53

CASES CITED: Asia Pacific International Pty Ltd v Dalrymple (2000) 2 Qd R 229
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Cityland & Property (Holdings) v Dabrah [1967] 2 All ER 629
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Morrell v Fisher & Westell Executors & Co (1849) 154 ER 1350
Murphy v Wright (1992) NSW ConvR 55-652
Re Hodson and Howes' Contract (1887) 35 Ch D 668
Silkdale Pty Ltd v Long Leys Co Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14, 414
Takemura v National Australia Bank Ltd [2003] NSWSC 339
Troncone v Aliperti (1994) NSW ConvR 55-703
West v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 610
Yarrangah Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd (1999) 9 BPR 17,061
Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 445

PARTIES :
Guardian Mortgages Pty Limited
David Miller

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12280/03

COUNSEL: M W Young (Plaintiff)
A Blank (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Bransgroves Solicitors (Plaintiff)

- 32 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Thursday 16 December 2004

12280/03 Guardian Mortgages Pty Ltd v David Miller

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The Plaintiff has brought these proceedings for an order for possession in relation to the property 182 Slade Road, Bardwell Park, being the whole of the land contained in Folio Identifier 3/19035 (“the mortgaged property”); and for an order for the judicial sale of a separate property, 5 Lambert Road, being the whole of the land identified as 172/A/11368 (“the charged property”).

2 The Defendant opposes the making of these orders, and by way of a cross-claim, seeks relief against forfeiture.

THE FACTS

3 On 20 December 2002…

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 Guardian Mortgages v Miller 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: [2004] NSWSC 1236
Decision Date: 16 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Guardian Mortgages, the plaintiff, seeking an order for possession of certain properties and a judicial sale. Miller, the defendant, cross-claimed for relief against forfeiture. The mortgage in question related to a resale of the mortgaged property, which was financed through a bridging loan. The dispute included issues of an invalid caveat, an unjust or unconscionable transaction, misleading or deceptive conduct, and a clog on the equity of redemption. Guardian Mortgages alleged that Miller had engaged in conduct that contravened various statutory provisions including the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), the Consumer Credit Code (NSW), the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW).

The court was tasked with determining whether the mortgage was valid and enforceable, and whether the defendant's cross-claim for relief against forfeiture had merit. Key legal issues included the enforceability of the mortgage, the validity of the bridging loan transaction, the effect of the caveat, and whether any statutory provisions had been breached. The court needed to consider whether the defendant's actions amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct or if the transaction was unjust or unconscionable. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the mortgage created a clog on the equity of redemption.

The court found that the mortgage was valid and enforceable, rejecting the defendant's cross-claim for relief against forfeiture. The bridging loan transaction was found to be valid, and the caveat was deemed invalid. The court concluded that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct and no unjust or unconscionable transaction. Furthermore, the court held that the mortgage did not create a clog on the equity of redemption. The court dismissed the defendant's claims and ordered that the properties be sold by judicial auction. The court's decision was based on a detailed examination of the evidence and applicable statutory provisions. The final orders included the granting of the plaintiff's order for possession and the judicial sale of the properties.

Orders