Legal Research
Cases
Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd

Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd

Case [2003] NSWSC 815 16 September 2003

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd and Anor [2003] NSWSC 815

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S): 30112/02

HEARING DATE{S): 08/08/03

JUDGMENT DATE: 16/09/2003

PARTIES:
Georgina Lucille Jonsson - Plaintiff
Akway Pty Ltd (ACN 010 719 856) - First defendant
Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal - Second defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Shaw J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/74593

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mr A Durie

COUNSEL:
P Batley (Sol) - Plaintiff
P Russell - Defendant

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid NSW - Plaintiff
Rowley & Ross Lawyers - Defendant

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal - question of law - whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine matter - whether purchase of house for parents is a 'personal' purpose - construction of the Consumer Credit Code

ACTS CITED:
Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Code 1995 s 6;

DECISION:
(1) Set aside the decision and orders of the Tribunal of 25 November 2002; (2) Direct the parties to file short minutes in conformity with these reasons within 7 days.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Shaw J
16 September 2003
30112 of 2002
Georgina Lucille Jonsson (Plaintiff)
v
Arkway Pty Limited (ACN 010 719 856) (First defendant);
Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales (Second defendant)
JUDGMENT

Shaw J: This is a matter in which the plaintiff (Ms Jonsson) challenges a decision of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW (“the Tribunal”) asking that this Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal.
The issue is whether that Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff’s application under the Consumer Credit Code, “the Code”, adopted into New South Wales law by the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Act 1995 (NSW).
The application, in attempting to specify the details of the claim, alleged:
Arkway Pty Ltd has a mortgage over the applicant’s house. The applicant is not aware of the circumstances in which Arkway was given the mortgage and did not intend to give a mortgage. Arkway alleges that the mortgage secures a loan to the applicant. The applicant has received no benefit from the alleged loan. The provision of credit on 1 March 1997, 1 March 1998 and 1 March 1999, allegedly secured by variations to the mortgage did not comply with the key disclosure requirements of the Consumer Credit Code. The transactions are unjust and the applicant seeks to have them set aside. The applicant seeks the imposition of a civil penalty on Arkway Pty Ltd.
It is said by the plaintiff that there was an error of law made by the Tribunal in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear her application for relief under the Code, and in particular, an error of law in finding that the transactions between the plaintiff and the first defendant on or about 12 May 1998 and also in June 1998 and September 1999 were not transactions to which the Code applied. A number of…

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 Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 815
Case: [2003] NSWSC 815
Decision Date: 16/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Jonsson, appealing a decision made by the Consumer Credit Tribunal. The dispute centred around whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter, specifically if the purchase of a house for the applicant's parents constituted a 'personal' purpose within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Code. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term 'personal' in the context of the Consumer Credit Code, and whether the purchase of a property for the applicant's parents could be considered a personal purpose. The applicant argued that the purchase was indeed for a personal purpose, while the respondent contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the purchase did not fall within the personal use category.

The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the appropriate interpretation of 'personal'. The court held that the term 'personal' should be given its ordinary and natural meaning and that the purchase of a house for the applicant's parents could be considered a personal purpose. The court further found that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter as it fell within the scope of the Consumer Credit Code.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for further consideration in light of the court's findings. The court's decision clarified the scope of the term 'personal' in the Consumer Credit Code and provided guidance for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Orders