Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: MAGARDITCH and ANOTHER v AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD [1998] NSWCA 134 Decision date: 23 September 1998
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Magarditch v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1998] NSWCA 134
- Case
- [1998] NSWCA 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Magarditch and another, appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the validity of a mortgage granted by the applicants to the respondent, the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the mortgage was void for want of consideration. The applicants contended that they received no benefit or detriment in exchange for granting the mortgage, and therefore, no consideration existed to support the contractual obligation.
The Court of Appeal held that the mortgage was supported by valuable consideration. It reasoned that the bank's forbearance from exercising its rights against the applicants' company, which was indebted to the bank, constituted sufficient consideration. The court applied the principle that a promise to refrain from doing something one has a legal right to do can be good consideration. This forbearance was of benefit to the company and, by extension, to the applicants who were guarantors of the company's debt.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the mortgage was void for want of consideration. The applicants contended that they received no benefit or detriment in exchange for granting the mortgage, and therefore, no consideration existed to support the contractual obligation.
The Court of Appeal held that the mortgage was supported by valuable consideration. It reasoned that the bank's forbearance from exercising its rights against the applicants' company, which was indebted to the bank, constituted sufficient consideration. The court applied the principle that a promise to refrain from doing something one has a legal right to do can be good consideration. This forbearance was of benefit to the company and, by extension, to the applicants who were guarantors of the company's debt.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court.
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.