JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)
CITATION: MACKENZIE & ANOR -v- ALBANY FINANCE LTD [2004] WASCA 301
CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
EM HEENAN J
LE MIERE J
HEARD: 23 JUNE 2004
DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2004
FILE NO/S: FUL 117 of 2003
BETWEEN: JAMES MACKENZIE
JOAN EDNA MACKENZIE
Appellants (Plaintiffs)AND
ALBANY FINANCE LTD
Respondent (Defendant)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :McLURE J
Citation :MACKENZIE & ANOR -v- ALBANY FINANCE LTD [2003] WASC 100
File No :CIV 2657 of 2000
Catchwords:
Debtor and creditors - Onus of proof of repayment - Depositor/finance company - Deposit repayable on demand - Accrual of action - Set off - Effect of alleged part repayments - Appropriation of payments - Right of appropriation - Significance of potential counterclaims - Late amendments to defence after trial - Issues not examined at trial
Legislation:
Cheques Act 1986 (Cth), s 22, s 25, s 26 and s 29
Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 38(1)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Cross appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellants (Plaintiffs) : Mr D H Solomon
Respondent (Defendant) : Mr G R Donaldson
Solicitors:
Appellants (Plaintiffs) : Solomon Brothers
Respondent (Defendant) : Blatchfords
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Christianos v Westpac Banking Corporation (1991) 5 WAR 336
Cory Brothers & Co Ltd v Owners of the Turkish Steamship Mecca (The Mecca) [1897] AC 286
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
Ellis v Ellis [1924] SASR 379
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Alstonbridge Properties Ltd [1975] 3 All ER 358
Friend v Young [1897] 2 Ch 421
Hazcor Pty Ltd & Ors v Kirwanon Pty Ltd (1995) 12 WAR 62
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21
Leeson v Leeson [1936] 2 KB 156
Lloyd v Grace‑Smith & Co [1912] 1 AC 716
Miller v Race (1758) 1 Burr 452
New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511
Parsons v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 619
Paterson v McNaghten (1905) 2 CLR 615
Permanent Building Society v Wheeler (No 2) (1993) 10 WAR 569
Scott v Davis (2000) 204 CLR 333
Stepney Corporation v Osofsky [1937] 3 All ER 289
Case(s) also cited:
Aequitas Ltd v Sparad No 100 Ltd (2001) 19 ACLC 1006
Arab Bank Ltd v Barclay's Bank (Dominion Colonial & Overseas) [1954] AC 495
Aries Tanker Corporation v Total Transport Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 185
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Atkinson v Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society (1890) 25 QBD 377
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Douglas Morris Investments Pty Ltd [1992] 1 Qd R 478
Bank of New South Wales v Fremantle Auto Centre [1973] WAR 161
Bank of New South Wales v Laing [1954] AC 135
Bateman's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council & Anor v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd & anor (1998)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mackenzie v Albany Finance Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 301
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court encompassed the burden of proof regarding repayment, the rights and obligations of the parties involved in a deposit agreement, and the accrual of the action. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of set-off, the effect of alleged partial repayments on the depositor's claim, and the right of appropriation of payments. The significance of potential counterclaims was also a matter for examination, as was the procedural issue of late amendments to the defence after the trial had concluded. The court had to determine whether these issues could be examined despite not having been addressed during the trial.
Judge Edelman ruled that the onus of proof rested on the depositor to demonstrate that the deposit had not been repaid. The court examined the nature of the deposit agreement, noting that it was repayable on demand. The judge also assessed the timing of the accrual of the action and the effect of any alleged partial repayments. The court held that the finance company had the right to appropriate payments made by the depositor. The judge did not consider late amendments to the defence as these had not been examined at trial. Ultimately, the court determined that the depositor had failed to meet the burden of proof, and the action was dismissed.
No final orders are provided in the text.
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.