JUDGE:	DERHAM AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 February 2018 (final submissions 5 March 2018)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 March 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Hall v Hall & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 131

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Undertaking to the Court to maintain the status quo in relation to trust property – Mortgage granted to trustee of a discretionary trust to secure loan to first defendant as a beneficiary of the trust – Discharge of mortgage over first defendant’s property in order to raise funds on first mortgage to pay legal fees in the proceeding – Application to vary undertaking to enable discharge of mortgage – Where undertaking restricts first defendant’s ability to fund the defence of the proceedings – Sufficiency of moneys available to discharge mortgage – Balance of justice – Application refused.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Whether s 5(7) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) applies to limit interest payments on discharge of mortgage where no proceedings for recovery of interest commenced – Limitation provision bars the remedy but does not extinguish the right to interest – Mortgagor entitled to payment of interest in full without limitation – Australia and New Zealand Banking Group v Douglas Morris Investments Pty Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 478; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Sammut [2000] VSC 374 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr L Glick QC with Mr DF McAloon	Strongman & Crouch
For the First Defendant	Mr NP De Young	HWL Ebsworth
No appearance for or on behalf of the Second to Fifth Defendants

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background facts................................................................................................................................ 1

Nature of the proceeding............................................................................................................. 2
The undertaking............................................................................................................................ 3

Application.......................................................................................................................................... 5

Relevant principles............................................................................................................................ 6

Submissions - prejudice to Thomas Hall....................................................................................... 7

Submissions - prejudice to the plaintiff........................................................................................ 8

Loan Agreement and Mortgage provisions................................................................................. 12

What sum is payable on discharge of the Mortgage?................................................................ 15

Should the undertaking and order be varied?........................................................................... 23

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 30

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The first defendant (‘Thomas Hall’) applies by summons for orders varying undertakings given by him to the Court on 2 March 2016, as extended (‘undertaking’), and orders made by the Court on 24 October 2017.[1] The variation is to enable him to sign and give effect to a discharge of the mortgage over the property at 40 Stanley Street, Blackrock, Victoria (‘Stanley Street Property’) registered in favour of Rhyse Holdings Pty Ltd (‘Rhyse’) as mortgagor upon payment of the sum of $674,130.40 to Rhyse to be held by it pursuant to the undertaking as varied (the ‘Proposed Transaction’).[2]
[1]Thomas Hall’s application is made by summons filed on 13 February 2018.
[2]The hearing and determination of the summons was referred to me pursuant to r 77.05 of the Supreme Court (General Civil…

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 Hall v Hall

Details

AGLC: Hall v Hall [2018] VSC 131
Case: [2018] VSC 131
Decision Date: 27 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hall v Hall involved a dispute between the parties over the management and disposition of trust property, specifically concerning a mortgage held over a property belonging to one of the beneficiaries. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The first defendant had been granted a mortgage to secure a loan, and the plaintiff sought to discharge this mortgage to raise funds for legal fees in the proceedings. The first defendant applied to the court to vary the undertaking to allow the discharge of the mortgage, arguing that it was necessary to fund the defence of the proceedings. However, the court had to determine if the variation of the undertaking was appropriate given the restrictions it imposed on the first defendant’s ability to fund the defence.

The primary legal issues were whether the court should permit the discharge of the mortgage over the first defendant’s property and if the variation of the undertaking was warranted to enable this. The court needed to consider the balance of justice and the sufficiency of the available funds to discharge the mortgage. Additionally, the court examined the implications of the limitation of actions under section 5(7) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) concerning the payment of interest on the mortgage. The court referenced previous cases such as Australia and New Zealand Banking Group v Douglas Morris Investments Pty Ltd and Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Sammut to clarify the position on interest payments post-discharge.

The Supreme Court of Victoria determined that the application to vary the undertaking should be refused. The court found that the undertaking appropriately maintained the status quo of the trust property and that permitting the discharge of the mortgage would not be in the balance of justice. Furthermore, the court held that while the limitation provision barred the remedy for the interest, it did not extinguish the right to interest, meaning the mortgagor was entitled to payment of interest in full without limitation. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to protect the interests of all beneficiaries and to ensure that the trust property was managed according to the terms of the trust deed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the refusal of the application to vary the undertaking.

Orders