Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Trent v Bolton [2020] NSWCA 268 Hearing dates: 20 October 2020 Date of orders: 20 October 2020 Decision date: 26 October 2020 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [2];
Simpson AJA at [23]Decision: (1) Refuse the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the District Court.
(2) Order that the applicants pay the respondents’ disbursements incurred in this Court.
Catchwords: APPEALS – leave to appeal – assertion that primary judge erroneously relied on affidavits verifying pleadings as evidence – trial conducted with a “level of informality” and involved self-represented parties – findings of fact open to judge – no question of principle warranting a grant of leave
GUARANTEE AND INDEMNITY – rights of guarantor to contribution from co-guarantors – whether payments by guarantor to principal debtor made under guarantee or as a loan to principal debtor – Mahoney v McManus (1981) 180 CLR 370 – primary judge’s findings of fact capable of supporting his conclusion
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101
Cases Cited: Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70
Delaney v Winn [2015] NSWCA 124
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Bradley Trent (First Applicant)
Eraina Trent (Second Applicant)
Kenneth Bolton (First Respondent)
Pauline Shumack (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
D C Price (Applicants)
Self-represented by Ms Shumack (Respondents)
Shaddicks Lawyers (Applicants)
File Number(s): 2019/392878 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 11 December 2019
- Before:
- P Taylor SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2018/155580
Judgment
-
BASTEN JA: I agree with Macfarlan JA.
-
MACFARLAN JA: By summons filed on 9 March 2020 Mr Bradley Trent and Ms Eraina Trent sought leave to appeal against a decision of P Taylor SC DCJ dated 11 December 2019 ([2019] NSWDC 853). In their written submissions they confined their challenge to his Honour’s decision to reduce their claim by $21,500 to account for an offsetting claim of the present respondents, Mr Kenneth Bolton and Ms Pauline Shumack.
-
The following are my reasons for joining in this Court’s orders made on 20 October 2020 dismissing the application for leave to appeal and ordering the applicants to pay the respondents’ disbursements incurred in the proceedings in this Court (the costs order being limited to disbursements because the respondents were self-represented, as they had been at first instance).
-
In 2001 the applicants and respondents became shareholders of a company (AJ Roberts Removals and Storage Pty Ltd) which conducted a removals and storage business. Mr Trent and Mr Bolton worked for the company and were the directors. The company was funded by finance provided to it by the National Australia Bank. Each of the applicants and respondents provided guarantees and registered mortgages over their homes to the Bank.
-
In 2009 Mr Trent ceased employment…
Continue reading Trent v Bolton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Trent v Bolton [2020] NSWCA 268
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 268
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in relying on affidavits verifying pleadings as evidence, and whether the payments made by the respondent guarantor were properly characterised as being made under the guarantee or as a loan to the principal debtor. The applicants also contended that there was a question of principle warranting a grant of leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge's findings of fact were open to him on the evidence presented, notwithstanding the informal nature of the trial. The Court applied the principles established in *Mahoney v McManus* (1981) 180 CLR 370 regarding the rights of a guarantor to contribution from co-guarantors. It concluded that the primary judge's factual findings were capable of supporting his ultimate conclusion. Furthermore, the Court determined that no question of principle arose that would justify granting leave to appeal.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the application for leave to appeal be refused and that the applicants pay the respondents’ disbursements incurred in the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Refuse the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the District Court.
(2) Order that the applicants pay the respondents’ disbursements incurred in this Court.
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.