McGlone v Suncorp-Metway Ltd

The case of McGlone v Suncorp-Metway Ltd involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. McGlone, and the defendant, Suncorp-Metway Ltd, over a line of credit provided by the defendant to a company, Homegate Pty Ltd, which was to be used by the plaintiff's then wife for the purchase of a business. The plaintiff signed a guarantee and indemnity for the obligations of Homegate under the line of credit, which was secured by a mortgage over the marital home. The plaintiff alleges that he was induced to sign the guarantee under undue influence from his then wife and that the defendant engaged in unconscionable conduct by providing the line of credit and subsequently increasing it. The defendant has applied for summary relief, seeking to set aside the plaintiff's amended claim and statement of claim as an abuse of process and to strike out the pleading as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and having a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.

The legal issues in this case revolve around whether the plaintiff's claims should be stayed as an abuse of process or struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The defendant argues that the plaintiff's claims are an attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been determined by the Federal Magistrates Court and the Full Court of the Family Court in relation to the breakdown of the plaintiff's marriage. The defendant further argues that the plaintiff's claims are an abuse of process and create the prospect of a result inconsistent with the Federal Magistrates Court's decision. The court must consider whether the plaintiff's claims are an abuse of process and whether they disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims should be stayed as an abuse of process and struck out. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were an attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been determined by the Federal Magistrates Court and the Full Court of the Family Court. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were an abuse of process and created the prospect of a result inconsistent with the Federal Magistrates Court's decision. The court held that the plaintiff's claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and had a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding. The court made orders staying paragraphs [1] and [3] of the amended claim filed 27 February 2015 seeking damages for unconscionable conduct and exemplary damages, striking out the amended statement of claim filed 27 February 2015, vacating Order 7 of the order of Justice Mullins made 5 February 2015, and making no order as to costs.