Morgan v Rankin [2008] NSWDC 166

Morgan v Rankin [2008] NSWDC 166

The court found that the defendants as guarantors had not been released or discharged from their obligations under the 2004 guarantee, because the allegedly varying documents were signed by the guarantors and not the plaintiffs, and there was no evidence of a valid variation or release. The subsequent arrangements with Lammington Drive Pty Ltd did not operate to rescind or replace the original loan agreement or release the defendants as guarantors. The guarantees continued to be valid and enforceable, and the defendants remained liable for the guaranteed sums and interest.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Scott Anthony Morgan; Second Plaintiff: Annette Frances Morgan; First Defendant: Phillip Norman Rankin; Second Defendant: Gregg Morgan; Third Defendant: David Warne; Fourth Defendant: Darren Van Aardt
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Guarantees, Discharge of Guarantor, Variation of Principal Contract, Release of Guarantors
Guarantee Enforceability of Guarantees Discharge of Guarantor Variation of Principal Contract Release of Guarantors

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Anthony Morgan

First Plaintiff

Annette Frances Morgan

Second Plaintiff

Phillip Norman Rankin

First Defendant

Gregg Morgan

Second Defendant

David Warne

Third Defendant

Darren Van Aardt

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the personal guarantees given by the defendants were enforceable in light of subsequent transactions and loan variations
  2. 2 Whether variation of the principal contract discharged the guarantors
  3. 3 Whether subsequent agreements released the defendants from their personal guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants as guarantors had not been released or discharged from their obligations under the 2004 guarantee, because the allegedly varying documents were signed by the guarantors and not the plaintiffs, and there was no evidence of a valid variation or release. The subsequent arrangements with Lammington Drive Pty Ltd did not operate to rescind or replace the original loan agreement or release the defendants as guarantors. The guarantees continued to be valid and enforceable, and the defendants remained liable for the guaranteed sums and interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $289,890.41.
  • The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the proceedings. This order is suspended until 22 August 2008 to allow either party to list the proceedings for further argument on the issue of costs.