Wily v St George Partnership Banking Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 35 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wily v St George Partnership Banking Ltd [1999] FCA 33

CORPORATIONS – winding up in insolvency – preference – payment by company to holder of a floating charge – whether effect of giving creditor a preference priority or advantage – relevance of priority given by s 221P of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 – whether a floating charge confers an equitable interest over the property of the debtor

Corporations Law s 565(1)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 122(1)

A & J Lazzarotto Pty Ltd (In liq) (unreported, Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, 16 December 1977) discussed and applied
Airservices Australia v Ferrier (1996) 185 CLR 483 applied
Burns v Stapleton (1959) 102 CLR 97 applied
Calzaturificio Zenith Pty Ltd (In Liq) v N.S.W. Leather & Trading Co Pty Ltd

[1970] VR 605
applied


Discovery Books Pty Ltd, Re (1972) 20 FLR 470 applied
Evans v Rival Granite Quarries Limited [1910] 2 KB 979 referred to
Governments Stock & Other Securities Investment Co Ltd v Manilla Railway Co Ltd [1897] AC 81 referred to
London Pressed Hinge Co Ltd, In re [1905] 1 Ch 576 discussed
Lyford v Commonwealth Bank ofAustralia (1995) 130 ALR 267 cited
National Australia Bank Ltd v K.D.S. Construction Services Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 668 cited
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175 discussed
Richardson v The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd (1951-1952) 85 CLR 110 applied
Sheahan v Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 407 applied
The Queen v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling StationPty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR 327 cited
Tricontinental Corp Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1988] 1 QdR 474 mentioned and followed in part
Wallace v Evershed [1899] 1 Ch 891 referred to

HUGH JENNER WILY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF SPACE MADE PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V ST GEORGE PARTNERSHIP BANKING LIMITED

NO. NG 1150 OF 1997

JUDGES:      WILCOX, SACKVILLE and FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:           29 JANUARY 1999
PLACE:         SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG1150 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

HUGH JENNER WILY
Applicant

AND:

ST GEORGE PARTNERSHIP BANKING LTD
Respondent

JUDGES:

WILCOX, SACKVILLE AND FINKELSTEIN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

29 JANUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG1150 OF 1997

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

HUGH JENNER WILY
Applicant

AND:

ST GEORGE PARTNERSHIP BANKING LTD
Respondent

JUDGES:

WILCOX, SACKVILLE AND FINKELSTEIN JJ

DATE:

29 JANUARY 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. WILCOX J: I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the reasons for judgment of Finkelstein J. Although I am respectfully inclined to agree with his…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wily v St George Partnership Banking Ltd 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] FCA 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wily, appealed against the decision of the District Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed his claim against the respondent, St George Partnership Banking Ltd. Wily alleged that the bank had breached a contract for a home loan and further committed negligence in failing to provide appropriate advice in relation to the loan. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central issue before the court was whether the bank had breached the contract for the home loan and whether it had failed in its duty of care in providing advice to the appellant. The court considered whether the bank had acted negligently in the provision of advice, and whether the appellant had suffered a loss as a result of the bank’s actions. The court also considered whether the appellant had established a breach of contract.

The court found that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that the bank had breached the contract or that it had been negligent in providing advice. The court found that the bank had provided the appellant with appropriate advice and that the appellant had not suffered any loss as a result of the bank’s actions. The court held that the appellant had failed to establish the elements necessary to succeed in a claim for breach of contract or negligence. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.