POLICE & NURSES LTD -v- BETTS [2014] WADC 91

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 91
Case No:	CIV:3150/2013	Heard:	11 JULY 2014
Coram:	DEPUTY REGISTRAR KUBACZ	Delivered:	22/07/14
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	POLICE & NURSES LTD TREVOR STANLEY JOHN BETTS PHILLIPE STEINIER
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Plaintiff's application for summary judgment Application out of time Whether extension should be granted Whether signing guarantee was induced by unconscionable conduct Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB
Case References:	Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Roget [2014] WADC 25 Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Spence Financial Group Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 177 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : POLICE & NURSES LTD -v- BETTS [2014] WADC 91 CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR KUBACZ HEARD : 11 JULY 2014 DELIVERED : 22 JULY 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 3150 of 2013 BETWEEN : POLICE & NURSES LTD

Plaintiff

AND

TREVOR STANLEY JOHN BETTS

PHILLIPE STEINIER

Defendants

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Plaintiff's application for summary judgment - Application out of time - Whether extension should be granted - Whether signing guarantee was induced by unconscionable conduct - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12CB

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr B C Smith

First-named Defendant : Mr P Lafferty

Second-named Defendant : Not applicable

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Gadens Lawyers

First-named Defendant : Kings Park Corporate Lawyers

Second-named Defendant : Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Roget [2014] WADC 25
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Spence Financial Group Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 177
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR KUBACZ: This is an interlocutory application, brought by way of chamber summons dated 11 April 2014, in which the plaintiff applies for orders against the first-named defendant that:

1. The action be removed from the inactive cases list;

2. The time for filing an application for summary judgment be extended to the date of the application;

3. The entry for trial milestone be extended pending the outcome of the application;

4. Pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the first-named defendant in the following terms:

(a) The first-named defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $455,790.93 plus interest from 23 December 2013 at the rate of 6% per annum pursuant to s 32 of the

Supreme Court Act 1933

;…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police and Nurses Ltd v Betts

Details

AGLC: Police and Nurses Ltd v Betts [2014] WADC 91
Case: [2014] WADC 91
Decision Date: 22 JULY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Police and Nurses Ltd v Betts involved a plaintiff who sought summary judgment against a defendant, arguing that the signing of a guarantee was induced by unconscionable conduct. The defendant argued that the application for summary judgment was out of time and should not be granted. The court had to determine whether the application was indeed out of time, and if so, whether an extension of time should be granted. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the signing of the guarantee was induced by unconscionable conduct.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for summary judgment and whether the application should be granted an extension of time. The court also had to determine whether the signing of the guarantee was induced by unconscionable conduct, which was a matter that turned on the specific facts of the case. The court had to consider whether the defendant had a viable defence to the claim and whether the defendant had acted in a manner that was contrary to good conscience.

In its reasoning, the court held that the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was indeed out of time, and that no extension of time should be granted. The court found that the defendant had raised a viable defence to the claim, and that the signing of the guarantee was not induced by unconscionable conduct. The court held that the matter turned on the specific facts of the case and that the defendant had acted in a manner that was not contrary to good conscience. The court dismissed the application for summary judgment and made no orders in relation to the claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.