Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: HEMMING and ANOR v MALECKI and ORS [1997] NSWCA 144 Decision date: 10 November 1997
See Attachment (PDF)
Continue reading Hemming v Malecki
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hemming v Malecki [1997] NSWCA 144
- Case
- [1997] NSWCA 144
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Hemming and Anor v Malecki and Ors* [1997] NSWCA 144, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute concerning the enforceability of a guarantee. The appellants, Hemming and Anor, sought to enforce a guarantee against the respondents, Malecki and Ors, in relation to a loan agreement.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the guarantee was valid and enforceable, notwithstanding certain alleged misrepresentations made by the creditor to the guarantors. Specifically, the court had to determine if the guarantors were discharged from their obligations under the guarantee due to the creditor's conduct.
The Court of Appeal held that the guarantors were not discharged from their obligations. The court applied the principle that a guarantor is only discharged from liability if the creditor has done something that amounts to a breach of a duty owed to the guarantor, or if the creditor has acted in a way that is inconsistent with the contract of guarantee. In this instance, the court found that the alleged misrepresentations did not amount to conduct that would vitiate the guarantee or discharge the guarantors from their liability. The appeal was dismissed.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the guarantee was valid and enforceable, notwithstanding certain alleged misrepresentations made by the creditor to the guarantors. Specifically, the court had to determine if the guarantors were discharged from their obligations under the guarantee due to the creditor's conduct.
The Court of Appeal held that the guarantors were not discharged from their obligations. The court applied the principle that a guarantor is only discharged from liability if the creditor has done something that amounts to a breach of a duty owed to the guarantor, or if the creditor has acted in a way that is inconsistent with the contract of guarantee. In this instance, the court found that the alleged misrepresentations did not amount to conduct that would vitiate the guarantee or discharge the guarantors from their liability. The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.