Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: St George Bank v Meredith; Ghabrial v Meredith [2017] NSWSC 961 Hearing dates: 26 June 2017 Date of orders: 20 July 2017 Decision date: 20 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Parker J Decision: 2014/312804
2016/89086
Short minutes of order to provide for payment out of monies and judgments for interest.
Short minutes of order to provide for judgment in favour of plaintiff for principal and interest.Catchwords: Mortgages and Securities – sale of property by mortgagee – surplus paid into court – competing claims to surplus – priority – Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 58(3) – statutory and equitable obligations of mortgagee holding surplus to account
Limitation of Actions – Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 58(3) – relevant date for accrual of claim – “then” entitled – exception to limitation defence – acknowledgment by payment – onus of proof
Civil Procedure – competing claims to surplus paid into court – proceedings brought under Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), Pt 4 – availability of interpleader procedure
Judgments and Orders – pre-judgment interest – interpleader – monies paid into court
Costs – competing claims to surplus paid into court – successful claimant’s entitlement to interest – payment of interest and costs out of surplusLegislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 100, 101
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 171
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 42, 43, 54, 63
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 57(2)(b), 58(3)
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), ss 5, 95, 99
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.7, Pt 41, 43Cases Cited: Aman v Southern Railway Co [1926] 1 KB 59
Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11
Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 269; [2009] HCA 44
Clay v Clay (2001) 202 CLR 410; [2001] HCA 9
De La Rue v Hernu, Peron & Stockwell Ltd [1936] 2 KB 164; 2 All ER 411
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Linter Textiles Australia Ltd (2005) 220 CLR 592; [2005] HCA 20
Kyabram Property Investments Pty Ltd v Murray [2005] NSWCA 87
Residential Housing Corporation v Esber (2011) 80 NSWLR 69; [2011] NSWCA 25
Smith v Hamilton [1951] Ch 174; 2 All ER 928
Sze Tu v Lowe (2014) 89 NSWLR 317; [2014] NSWCA 462
Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512Category: Principal judgment Parties: 2014/312804
2016/89086
St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation (Plaintiff)
Lynette Marie Meredith (First Defendant)
International Acceptance Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Greg Eastlake as Executor of the late Peter La Fontaine (Third Defendant)
Amgad and Melissa Ghabrial (Fourth Defendant)
Amgad Ghabrial (First Plaintiff)
Melissa Ghabrial (Second Plaintiff)
Lynette Marie Meredith (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
HWM Stitt (Ghabrials)
DC Price (International Acceptance)
Trevor Hall (Solicitor) (the Estate)
WKA Legal Pty Ltd (Ghabrials)
Kemp Strang (International Acceptance)
Hall Partners (the Estate)
File Number(s): 2014/312804; 2016/89086 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
There are before the Court two…
Continue reading St George Bank v Meredith
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- St George Bank v Meredith; Ghabrial v Meredith [2017] NSWSC 961
- Case
- [2017] NSWSC 961
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues revolved around the priority of the claims to the surplus, the application of statutory and equitable obligations under the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), and the relevant date for the accrual of the creditor’s claim, considering the limitation defence. The court also examined the appropriateness of the interpleader procedure under the Trustee Act 1925 (NSW) and the entitlement to pre-judgment interest and costs in such proceedings.
The court determined that the creditor’s claim was not time-barred as it was acknowledged by the payment made by the mortgagee, which constituted an exception to the limitation defence. The court held that the relevant date for the accrual of the creditor's claim was when the surplus was paid into court, not when the sale occurred. Regarding the priority of claims, the court ruled in favour of the creditor, who had a superior claim to the surplus due to their prior creditor status. The court also addressed the issue of pre-judgment interest, holding that it should be paid to the successful claimant from the date the surplus was paid into court. The final orders included the declaration in favour of the creditor, the payment of pre-judgment interest, and the direction that costs be paid out of the surplus.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.