Hermes Capital Australia Ltd v Melia

The case of Hermes Capital Australia Ltd v Melia involved a dispute over a guaranteed debt secured by real property. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the guarantee and secure possession of the property, while the defendants argued against the enforceability of the guarantee and the validity of the possession orders. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues were whether the guarantee was enforceable, whether the possession orders were valid, and whether the liquidated debt claims against the non-bankrupt defendant could proceed. The court needed to determine whether the springing orders were properly executed and assess the validity of the claims against the defendants, particularly in light of the bankruptcy of one of the guarantors.

The court found that the guarantee was enforceable and that the springing orders were valid, as they were triggered by the bankruptcy of one of the guarantors. The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the non-compliance with the springing orders should render them unenforceable. The court also held that the possession orders against the bankrupt defendant's interest in the property were valid. In evaluating the liquidated claims against the non-bankrupt defendant, the court found that the certificate of prima facie evidence was sufficient to establish the claims. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments did not change the outcome, as the claims turned on their own facts.

The final orders included a declaration that the guarantee was enforceable, that the possession orders against the bankrupt defendant's interest in the property were valid, and that the liquidated claims against the non-bankrupt defendant could proceed. The court also ordered the non-bankrupt defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs.