Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield [2001] NSWCA 440

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield [2001] NSWCA 440

The claimed account was an equitable claim for recovery of money within s 134(1)(h) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), not a claim excluded as relief against fraud or mistake, so the District Court had jurisdiction and prohibition should be refused. The trial judge's decisions to permit the plaintiff to re-open his case and amend his statement of claim involved no demonstrated error in the exercise of discretion, so leave to appeal should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for an Order in the Nature of Prohibition Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) and Application for Leave to Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal From Orders of Balla DCJ in District Court Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; summons otherwise dismissed; claimant to pay the opponent's costs.
Legal Topics
['district Court Equitable Jurisdiction' 'claim for Account' 'mortgagee Power of Sale' 'prohibition' 'leave to Appeal' 're Opening a Case' 'amendment of Pleadings']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'mortgage Law' 'jurisdiction'] ['district Court Equitable Jurisdiction' 'claim for Account' 'mortgagee Power of Sale' 'prohibition' 'leave to Appeal' 're Opening a Case' 'amendment of Pleadings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Order in the Nature of Prohibition Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw) and Application for Leave to Appeal / New South Wales Court of Appeal From Orders of Balla DCJ in District Court Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a proceeding for an account against a mortgagee for alleged wrongful exercise of a power of sale falls within the equitable jurisdiction of the District Court under s 134(1)(h) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW).' 'Whether the District Court should be prohibited under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) from further hearing the proceedings.' 'Whether Balla DCJ erred in granting leave to the plaintiff to re-open his case and adduce further evidence.' 'Whether Balla DCJ erred in granting leave to amend the statement of claim to claim equitable relief including an account.']

Ratio Decidendi

The claimed account was an equitable claim for recovery of money within s 134(1)(h) of the District Court Act 1973 (NSW), not a claim excluded as relief against fraud or mistake, so the District Court had jurisdiction and prohibition should be refused. The trial judge's decisions to permit the plaintiff to re-open his case and amend his statement of claim involved no demonstrated error in the exercise of discretion, so leave to appeal should be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; summons otherwise dismissed; claimant to pay the opponent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal refused' 'Summons otherwise dismissed' "Claimant to pay the opponent's costs"]