Kwik Finance (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Walker

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Kwik Finance (Sydney) Pty Ltd v Walker [2014] NSWCA 73

Hearing dates:

17 March 2014

Decision date:

17 March 2014

Before:

McColl JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [1]

Decision:

(1) Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

(2) Applicants to pay the respondent's costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal - leave refused

Legislation Cited:

Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Code 1995, ss 6, 10C, 70 and 71
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)
National Credit Code (Cth), s 12
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 65, 69, 101

Cases Cited:

Collier v Lancer (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 186
Walker v Kwik Finance (Sydney) Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWCTTT 520.

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Kwik Finance (Sydney) Pty Ltd (First Applicant)
DTGN1 Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Nicole Walker (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
M J Neil QC, M Minehan
(First and Second Applicants)
A Leopold SC, P Batley (Respondent)
Solicitors:
QBM Lawyers (First and Second Applicants)
Legal Aid NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2013/316630

 Decision under appeal 

Jurisdiction:

9111

Citation:

Walker v Consumer, Trade and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1432

Date of Decision:

2013-09-27 00:00:00

Before:

Hall J

File Number(s):

2011/410504

Judgment

1. THE COURT: The applicants, Kwik and DTGN1, sought leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of the primary judge (Hall J) in Walker v Consumer, Trade and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 1432. Leave to appeal was required because the amount in issue in the underlying proceedings was $10,000: s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

1. At the conclusion of the argument of that application on 17 March 2014, the Court made the following orders:

(1) Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

(2) Applicants to pay the respondent's costs.

1. These are the Court's reasons for making those orders.

1. At relevant times in 2005 the first applicant (Kwik) was a credit provider and the second applicant (DTGN1) a motor vehicle dealer. Each was a wholly owned subsidiary of PR Finance Group Ltd, a party to the proceedings before the primary judge but not a party to the proposed appeal. In July 2005 the respondent (Ms Walker) purchased a motor vehicle from DTGN1. That purchase was financed by moneys advanced by Kwik under a Loan Contract which did not provide for the payment of any interest and which described the "total interest charges" as nil.

1. A dispute arose between the respondent and Kwik as to her obligations under the…