SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Shakespeare Haney Securities Ltd v Crawford [2009] QCA 85
PARTIES:
SHAKESPEARE HANEY SECURITIES LIMITED
ACN 087 435 783
(applicant/respondent)
v
JOSEPHINE MARY CRAWFORD
(respondent/appellant)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 11325 of 2008
SC No 9480 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
9 April 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 March 2009
JUDGES:
Muir JA, Mullins and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:
CONSUMER CREDIT – CREDIT PROTECTION – GENERAL – OPERATION OF CREDIT LEGISLATION – INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS – REGULATED CONTRACTS AND REGULATED MORTGAGES – where under a loan facility deed the respondent provided a loan to the appellant – where the appellant declared the credit provided was to be applied wholly or predominantly for business or investment purposes – where the appellant argued that the declaration was ineffective as the respondent knew, or had reason to believe, that the credit was in fact to be applied wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes and the transaction was therefore subject to the Consumer Credit Code – whether the primary judge erred in finding there was not a serious question to be tried as to the application of the Consumer Credit Code to the credit contracts
CONSUMER CREDIT – CREDIT PROTECTION – GENERAL – OPERATION OF CREDIT LEGISLATION – EXCEPTIONS FROM OPERATION OF CREDIT LEGISLATION – where the appellant argued the Consumer Credit Code applied to the loan facility deed between herself and the respondent as the loan was to be applied wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes – whether the primary judge erred in finding the loan was for a predominantly commercial purpose
Consumer Credit Code (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 11(2), s 11(3), s 80(3)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 84Bahadori v Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd (2007) 69 NSWLR 49; [2007] NSWSC 79, cited
Benjamin v Ashikian (2007) ASC 155-086; [2007] NSWSC 735, cited
Culverden Retirement Village Ltd v Registrar of Companies [1997] AC 303, cited
Dale v Nichols Constructions Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 453, followed
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Whitfords Beach Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 355; [1982] HCA 8, cited
Hyde v Sullivan (1956) SR (NSW) 113, cited
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Rolls-Royce Ltd [1944] 2 All ER 340, cited
Jonssonv Arkway Pty Ltd (2003) 58 NSWLR 451;[2003] NSWSC 815, cited
Linkenholt Pty Ltd v Quirk (2000) ASC 155-040; [2000] VSC 166, cited
Park Avenue Nominees Pty Ltd v Boon (2001) ASC 155-052; [2001] NSWSC 700, cited
Rafiqi v Wacal Investments Pty Ltd (1998) ASC 155-024; [1998] QDC 215, cited
ReAustralian Industrial Relations Commission; Ex parte Australian Transport Officers Federation (1990) 171 CLR 216; [1990] HCA 52, cited
The Commissioner of Taxes v The Australian…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Shakespeare Haney Securities Ltd v Crawford and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] QCA 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this case revolve around the interpretation of the relevant credit legislation and the applicability of the Consumer Credit Code to the loan provided by the respondent to the appellant. The court had to determine whether the primary judge correctly found that there was not a serious question to be tried as to the application of the Consumer Credit Code to the credit contracts, and whether the loan was for a predominantly commercial purpose. The court also needed to assess whether the primary judge erred in his interpretation of the credit legislation.
The court found that the primary judge correctly assessed the evidence and concluded that there was not a serious question to be tried regarding the application of the Consumer Credit Code to the credit contracts. The court held that the appellant's argument that the declaration was ineffective was not supported by the evidence. The court further found that the primary judge's determination that the loan was for a predominantly commercial purpose was not erroneous. The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the primary judge's findings were consistent with the evidence and the relevant credit legislation.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court upheld the primary judge's decision that there was not a serious question to be tried regarding the application of the Consumer Credit Code to the credit contracts, and that the loan was for a predominantly commercial purpose. The court found that the primary judge's interpretation of the credit legislation was correct, and that the appellant's arguments were not supported by the evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.