Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: LORIMER v STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1991] NSWCA 176 Decision date: 05 July 1991
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Lorimer v State Bank of New South Wales [1991] NSWCA 176
- Case
- [1991] NSWCA 176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales heard an appeal by the plaintiff, Lorimer, against the State Bank of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the defendant's alleged breach of duty in its role as a mortgagee in possession.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant, as mortgagee in possession, had breached its duty to take reasonable care to obtain a proper price for the mortgaged property when it sold the property under its power of sale. This involved considering the standard of care expected of a mortgagee exercising its power of sale and the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the sale.
The Court analysed the conduct of the defendant in conducting the sale, including the marketing of the property and the price obtained. It applied the legal principle that a mortgagee exercising its power of sale is not a trustee for the mortgagor but must act in good faith and take reasonable care to obtain a proper price. The Court found that the defendant had not breached this duty, as the evidence did not establish that a proper price had not been obtained or that the defendant had acted improperly in its conduct of the sale.
The appeal was dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant, as mortgagee in possession, had breached its duty to take reasonable care to obtain a proper price for the mortgaged property when it sold the property under its power of sale. This involved considering the standard of care expected of a mortgagee exercising its power of sale and the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the sale.
The Court analysed the conduct of the defendant in conducting the sale, including the marketing of the property and the price obtained. It applied the legal principle that a mortgagee exercising its power of sale is not a trustee for the mortgagor but must act in good faith and take reasonable care to obtain a proper price. The Court found that the defendant had not breached this duty, as the evidence did not establish that a proper price had not been obtained or that the defendant had acted improperly in its conduct of the sale.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.