Mahendran v Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd

Case [2013] NSWCA 280

Court of Appeal

New South Wales
Case Title: Mahendran v Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd
Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCA 280
Hearing Date(s): 3 July 2013
Decision Date: 03 September 2013
Before: Barrett JA (at [1]; Emmett JA (at [59]); Gleeson JA (at [60])
Decision:

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the verdict and judgment ordered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent in the District Court and in lieu thereof order verdict and judgment against the appellant and in favour of the respondent in the sum of $138,833.29.

3. Appeal otherwise dismissed.

4. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

[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: BANKING AND FINANCE - loan facilities - several loans by lender to borrower - proceeds of sales of properties wholly applied towards repayment of loans - action by lender to recover outstanding balances - judgment given - whether interest correctly calculated - whether outstanding balance less than judgment sum - REAL PROPERTY - caveats against dealings - caveat lodged by lender on title to borrower's property over which it held no security - whether that caveat lodged without reasonable cause - whether borrower sustained loss attributable to lodgement of the caveat
Legislation Cited: Real Property Act 1900, s 74P
Cases Cited: Brogue Tableau Pty Ltd v Binningup Nominees Pty Ltd v [2007] WASCA 179; (2007) 35 WAR 27
Natuna Pty Ltd v Cook [2007] NSWSC 121
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rajiv Kumar Mahendran (Appellant)
Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
Self-represented Appellant
Mr B Pluznyk (Respondent)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Self-represented Appellant
GRG Lawyers & Consultants - Respondent
File Number(s): CA 2012/299242
Decision Under Appeal
- Before: Olsson DCJ
- Date of Decision:  30 August 2012
- Court File Number(s): DC 2012/31203

JUDGMENT

  1. BARRETT JA: This is an appeal from a decision of Olsson DCJ awarding a judgment of $167,354.65 against the present appellant, Mr Mahendran, and in favour of the present respondent, Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd ("Chase").

  2. Chase sued in the District Court to recover moneys due under two loan agreements made between Chase as lender and Mr Mahendran as borrower. Each loan was secured by a mortgage of land. The loan agreements formed part of the mortgages, in the sense that all the loan terms were set out in the mortgages.

The relevant loans

  1. The first of the two loans was made in June 2007. The sum lent was $105,000. The mortgage was over a property in Lowan Place, Kellyville. It will be convenient to refer to this loan as the "Lowan loan".

  2. The second loan was made in…

Continue reading Mahendran v Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mahendran v Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 280
Case
[2013] NSWCA 280
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Mahendran v Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute arising from loan facilities provided by Chase Enterprises Pty Ltd (the respondent) to Mr Mahendran (the appellant). The respondent had advanced several loans to the appellant, and the proceeds from the sale of properties were applied towards the repayment of these loans. The respondent subsequently commenced proceedings to recover the outstanding balances, and a judgment was entered in the District Court. The appeal raised questions regarding the correct calculation of interest and whether the outstanding balance was less than the judgment sum awarded. Additionally, the appeal addressed the lodgement of a caveat by the respondent on the title of a property owned by the appellant, over which the respondent held no security, and whether this caveat was lodged without reasonable cause, causing loss to the appellant.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court had correctly calculated the interest payable on the outstanding loan balances and whether the total outstanding balance was indeed less than the judgment sum awarded. Furthermore, the court was required to determine if the respondent had lodged the caveat on the appellant's property without reasonable cause and, if so, whether the appellant had sustained any loss as a direct result of that lodgement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It found that the District Court's judgment had overstated the amount owed by the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the original verdict and judgment and substituted it with a new judgment in favour of the respondent for the sum of $138,833.29. The court dismissed the appeal in all other respects. As a result of the partial success of the appeal, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed in part.

2. Set aside the verdict and judgment ordered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent in the District Court and in lieu thereof order verdict and judgment against the appellant and in favour of the respondent in the sum of $138,833.29.

3. Appeal otherwise dismissed.

4. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

[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.]

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.