Hopkins v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

The plaintiff sought orders to give effect to a settlement of proceedings with the defendant, a banking group. The proceedings related to a mortgage over the plaintiff’s property, where the defendant sought vacant possession and a writ of possession if the property was not sold on terms acceptable to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the sale had been effected on terms reasonably acceptable to the defendant, and sought an order that the mortgage be discharged and the writ set aside. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the terms of sale were not acceptable to them.

The legal issue before the court was whether the terms of sale proposed by the plaintiff were reasonably acceptable to the defendant. The court considered the evidence before it and found that the terms of sale proposed by the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the settlement agreement. The court held that the defendant was entitled to vacant possession and a writ of possession, as the sale had not been effected on terms reasonably acceptable to the defendant.

The court found that the terms of sale proposed by the plaintiff were not reasonably acceptable to the defendant, as they did not provide for the property to be sold on terms that were fair and reasonable in all circumstances. The court held that the defendant was entitled to vacant possession and a writ of possession, as the sale had not been effected on terms reasonably acceptable to the defendant. The court made an order that the mortgage be discharged and the writ set aside, subject to the defendant’s right to vacant possession and a writ of possession.