Hopkins v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2017] NSWSC 1461

Hopkins v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2017] NSWSC 1461

The terms of the sale of the property by Mrs Hopkins to her son-in-law at $1,008,000, in circumstances where higher offers were excluded and ANZ did not approve the sale process or terms, were not 'reasonably acceptable' to ANZ as required by the settlement. Therefore, pursuant to the settlement terms, ANZ was entitled to vacant possession, a writ of possession, and to enforce the settlement as written.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Motion / Final Determination of Competing Motions Regarding Enforcement of Settlement Terms; Orders for Possession
Outcome
First Defendant/Cross-Claimant (ANZ) succeeds; Plaintiff's (Mrs Hopkins) motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['enforcement of Settlement' 'mortgagee Rights' 'vacant Possession' 'reasonableness Standard in Settlements']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['enforcement of Settlement' 'mortgagee Rights' 'vacant Possession' 'reasonableness Standard in Settlements']

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

Motion / Final Determination of Competing Motions Regarding Enforcement of Settlement Terms; Orders for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether sale of mortgaged property by mortgagor was 'on terms reasonably acceptable' to mortgagee under settlement terms" 'Whether mortgagee is entitled to vacant possession and a writ of possession due to alleged failure to effect sale on acceptable terms']

Ratio Decidendi

The terms of the sale of the property by Mrs Hopkins to her son-in-law at $1,008,000, in circumstances where higher offers were excluded and ANZ did not approve the sale process or terms, were not 'reasonably acceptable' to ANZ as required by the settlement. Therefore, pursuant to the settlement terms, ANZ was entitled to vacant possession, a writ of possession, and to enforce the settlement as written.

Court Disposition

First Defendant/Cross-Claimant (ANZ) succeeds; Plaintiff's (Mrs Hopkins) motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Declaration that proceedings were settled per the Settlement Terms of 28 April 2017 between ANZ and Mrs Hopkins.' 'Judgment for possession of the Sylvania Waters property in favour of ANZ and leave to issue a writ of possession forthwith.' "Dismissal of Mrs Hopkins' Notice of Motion filed 19 September 2017, with...