Hoskin v Ask Funding Ltd

Case [2016] QDC 104


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hoskin v Ask Funding Ltd [2016] QDC 104

PARTIES:

JULIE HOSKIN

(appellant)

v

ASK FUNDING LTD

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 724/2015; MAG 9229/2009

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 May 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 January 2016

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Error of law – whether statutory requirement satisfied – interpretation of reasons – whether new trial appropriate remedy.

CONSUMER CREDIT – Unjust contracts – whether statutory test applied – significance of public interest – whether loan contract unjust.

INFERIOR COURTS – Magistrates Courts – civil jurisdiction – whether interest accruing under a contract after proceeding commenced can be awarded if it takes the judgment over the monetary limit.

National Credit Code s 76.

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1991) 22 NSWLR 1 – considered.
Barker v GE Mortgage Solutions Ltd [2013] QCA 137 – applied.
Beneficial Finance Corp Ltd v Karavas (1993) 23 NSWLR 256 – cited.
Campbell v Turner (No.2) [2007] QSC 362 – followed.
Campbell v Turner (No.2) [2008] QCA 189 – considered.
Citicorp Australia Ltd v O’Brien (1996) 40 NSWLR 398 – considered.
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Gray [1992] 1 VR 540 – cited.
Custom Credit Corporation Ltd v Lupi [1992] 1 VR 99 – considered.
Cypressvale Pty Ltd v Retail Shop Lease Tribunal [1996] 2 Qd R 462 – cited.
Dale v Nichols Constructions Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 453 – considered.
Elkofairi v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [2002] NSWCA 413 – considered.
Flockton and ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2011] WASAT 57 – considered.
FTV Holdings Cairns Pty Ltd v Smith [2014] QCA 217 – cited.
Housing Commission of NSW v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378 – cited.
Johns v Johns [1988] 1 Qd R 138 – cited.
Nguyen v Taylor (1992) 27 NSWLR 48 – considered.
Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Cook (2006) ASC 155-082 – cited.
Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41 – considered.
Sharman v Kunert [1985] 1 NSWLR 225 – cited.
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 – cited.
Van Riet v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2004] 1 Qd R 194 – considered.
West v AGC (Advances) Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 610 – considered.

COUNSEL:

P E King for the appellant.

J K Chapple for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Robert Balzola and Associates for the appellant.

Boyd Legal for the respondent.

  1. On 28 January 2015 a magistrate at Brisbane gave judgment for the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $165,877.50, including $16,044.45 by way of interest by statute.  The following day the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on an indemnity basis.  On 24 February 2015 the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court seeking to set aside the whole of the decision; an order for a new trial was not expressly sought from…

Continue reading Hoskin v Ask Funding Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hoskin v Ask Funding Ltd [2016] QDC 104
Case
[2016] QDC 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hoskin v Ask Funding Ltd involved the plaintiff, Hoskin, and the defendant, Ask Funding Ltd. The dispute centred around a loan agreement between the parties, with Hoskin asserting that the loan contract was unjust under the Australian Consumer Law. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the statutory requirement of an unjust contract had been satisfied, the interpretation of the reasons provided, and whether a new trial was the appropriate remedy. Additionally, the court examined whether the interest accruing under the contract after the proceeding commenced could be awarded if it exceeded the monetary limit of the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction.

The court delved into the interpretation of the statutory test for unjust contracts and assessed the significance of the public interest in such cases. It evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine if the loan contract indeed met the criteria for being deemed unjust. Furthermore, the court scrutinised the reasons provided by the lower court and assessed whether these reasons were sufficient and legally sound. The court also considered whether the award of interest that accrued post the commencement of the proceeding would push the total amount claimed beyond the Magistrates Court's jurisdictional limit, potentially rendering the case ineligible for a new trial in that court.

The Federal Court concluded that the lower court had not erred in its application of the statutory test for unjust contracts, nor in its interpretation of the reasons provided. The court held that the public interest was not a decisive factor in this context. Additionally, the court determined that the interest accruing after the proceeding commenced did not render the case ineligible for a new trial in the Magistrates Court if it exceeded the monetary limit. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered the appellant to pay costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.