Legal Research
Cases
Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pineiro

Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pineiro

Case [2017] NSWSC 1739 14 December 2017

Statutory Construction

Contract Formation

Limitation Periods

Statutory Interpretation

Contract Law

Limitation of Actions

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pineiro [2017] NSWSC 1739
Hearing dates: 13 November 2017
Date of orders: 14 December 2017
Decision date: 14 December 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Darke J
Decision:
Judgment to be entered for plaintiff against first defendant in the sum of $67,600.

Catchwords:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – principles of statutory interpretation – meaning of “a party to the deed” in Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 38(1) – where section amended after its introduction – whether amendment alters meaning of remaining provisions of section – whether context requires broad reading of “party” to include persons who sign for a party or are otherwise associated with a party – ordinary meaning of “party” preferred

CONTRACTS – deeds – attestation of deeds – Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 38(1) – whether signatory for party is capable of attesting execution of deed – whether person associated with party is capable of attesting execution of deed – attestation valid

CONTRACTS – deeds – attestation of deeds – Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 38(1) – whether s 38 applies to execution of deeds by corporations – held, it does not have general application to execution of deeds by corporations

CONTRACTS – deeds – general principles of construction – where interest accrued monthly under deed of loan – whether borrower required to pay interest prior to repayment of principal – no obligation to pay interest prior to repayment of principal

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – multiple applicable limitation periods – whether cause of action is founded on a contract not a deed – whether plaintiff’s claim for principal under deed of loan barred – plaintiff’s claim not barred

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – mortgages – where claim founded on equitable mortgage and equitable charge – whether Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 40 applies so that claim is not affected by Limitation Act – held, s 40 only operates to exclude rights and remedies of a registered proprietor from the provisions of the Limitation Act
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – mortgages – interest secured by mortgage – effect of Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 43 – whether plaintiff able to claim interest prior to commencement of proceedings – plaintiff able to claim interest which accrued in six years prior to commencement of proceedings
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), ss 38, 51A, 66G
Conveyancing (Amendment) Act 1976 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 33, 34
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 11, 13, 14, 16, 23, 40, 42, 43
Property Law Act 1969 (WA), s 9
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 45
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 58, 60
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), s 9
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 14.14
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41
Bank of Victoria v M’Michael (1882) 8 VLR (L) 11
Commissioner of Stamps (SA) v Telegraph Investment Co Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 453
Commonwealth Bank…

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 Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pineiro

Details

AGLC: Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pineiro [2017] NSWSC 1739
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1739
Decision Date: 14 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Reliance Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pineiro concerned several issues related to the interpretation of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) and the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The primary dispute involved the attestation of deeds, the interpretation of the term "party to the deed," and the limitation periods applicable to claims made under deeds. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including whether the term "party to the deed" in section 38(1) of the Conveyancing Act included signatories for a party or persons associated with a party. The court also needed to decide whether section 38 applied to the execution of deeds by corporations and whether the plaintiff was obligated to pay interest prior to the repayment of the principal under the deed of loan. Additionally, the court had to consider the limitation periods applicable to claims made under deeds and whether the plaintiff's claim for interest that accrued prior to the commencement of proceedings was barred.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the ordinary meaning of the term "party to the deed" was preferred and did not include signatories for a party or persons associated with a party. The court also determined that section 38 did not have a general application to the execution of deeds by corporations. The court found that there was no obligation for the borrower to pay interest prior to the repayment of the principal. Regarding limitation periods, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for principal under the deed of loan was not barred and that the plaintiff could claim interest that accrued within six years prior to the commencement of proceedings.

The court ordered that the plaintiff could recover interest that accrued in the six years prior to the commencement of proceedings. The court also clarified that section 40 of the Limitation Act 1969 only excluded rights and remedies of a registered proprietor from the provisions of the Limitation Act and did not affect claims based on equitable mortgages and equitable charges.

Orders