Permanent Custodians Ltd v AGB Developments Pty Ltd

The case of Permanent Custodians Ltd v AGB Developments Pty Ltd involved a dispute between a creditor and guarantors regarding the terms of a guarantee and indemnity. The creditor, Permanent Custodians Ltd, had entered into a guarantee and indemnity agreement with AGB Developments Pty Ltd. The guarantors sought to prevent the creditor from entering a consent judgment for a shortfall after the sale of the debtor's property, alleging that there were implied terms in the agreement to obtain the best price possible. The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the implied terms, the obligations of the guarantors under the guarantee and indemnity, and whether the provisions of the guarantee required payment by the guarantors before a claim could be made against the creditor.

The court examined the terms of the guarantee and indemnity agreement to determine if there were any implied terms regarding the sale of the debtor's property. The court held that there were no implied terms in the agreement to obtain the best price. The court further examined the provisions of the guarantee and indemnity agreement to determine whether the guarantors were required to pay the shortfall before a claim could be made against the creditor. The court held that the provisions of the guarantee and indemnity agreement did not require the guarantors to pay the shortfall before a claim could be made against the creditor. The court also considered whether the duty under s 420A Corporations Act 2001 provided a remedy for the guarantors. The court held that the duty under s 420A did not provide a remedy for the guarantors.

The court ultimately dismissed the guarantors' application to file a cross-claim to prevent the entry of the consent judgment. The court held that the guarantors were not entitled to prevent the creditor from entering a consent judgment for the shortfall after the sale of the debtor's property. The court further held that the guarantors were required to pay the shortfall to the creditor before a claim could be made against the creditor. The court did not find any breach of duty under s 420A Corporations Act 2001 by the creditor. The court ordered that the guarantors pay the shortfall to the creditor before a claim could be made against the creditor.