Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Adventure Quest Paintball-Skirmish Pty Limited; Woollard v Hodgson; Hodgson v Woollard [2016] NSWSC 188
The court found that the guarantee executed by Mr Woollard was binding for all money owed by Adventure Quest to ANZ, as the statutory assumptions applied to the execution of the 2009 loan agreement by the company, and ANZ had no knowledge or suspicion of any lack of authority or forgery. Mr Woollard was found jointly and severally liable under the guarantee and mortgage. The guarantee was not unjust within the meaning of the Contracts Review Act, and Mr Woollard had no defence against ANZ. On the cross-claims, contribution was apportioned between Mr Woollard and Mr Hodgson, consistent with their equal liability as co-guarantors.
- Parties
- Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant to First Cross Claim/second Cross Defendant to Second Cross Claim: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; First Defendant: Adventure Quest Paintball-Skirmish Pty Limited; Second Defendant/first Cross Defendant to First Cross Claim/cross Claimant to Second Cross Claim: Andrew Mark Hodgson; Third Defendant/cross Claimant to First Cross Claim/first Cross Defendant to Second Cross Claim: Kim Garnet Woollard
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 March 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant; judgment for the first and second cross-defendants on the first cross-claim; judgment for the cross-claimant on the second cross-claim.
- Legal Topics
- Guarantee, Forgery, Statutory Assumptions, Contribution, Unconscionable Conduct
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Plaintiff/second Cross Defendant to First Cross Claim/second Cross Defendant to Second Cross Claim
Adventure Quest Paintball-Skirmish Pty Limited
First Defendant
Andrew Mark Hodgson
Second Defendant/first Cross Defendant to First Cross Claim/cross Claimant to Second Cross Claim
Kim Garnet Woollard
Third Defendant/cross Claimant to First Cross Claim/first Cross Defendant to Second Cross Claim
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the guarantee binds the third defendant for advances made under a loan agreement he allegedly did not authorise or sign
- 2 Whether statutory assumptions under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) apply in favour of ANZ
- 3 Whether forgeries of signatures on loan or guarantee documents affect enforceability
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the guarantee executed by Mr Woollard was binding for all money owed by Adventure Quest to ANZ, as the statutory assumptions applied to the execution of the 2009 loan agreement by the company, and ANZ had no knowledge or suspicion of any lack of authority or forgery. Mr Woollard was found jointly and severally liable under the guarantee and mortgage. The guarantee was not unjust within the meaning of the Contracts Review Act, and Mr Woollard had no defence against ANZ. On the cross-claims, contribution was apportioned between Mr Woollard and Mr Hodgson, consistent with their equal liability as co-guarantors.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant; judgment for the first and second cross-defendants on the first cross-claim; judgment for the cross-claimant on the second cross-claim.
Orders
- Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant.
- Plaintiff has leave to issue forthwith a writ for possession of land at Certificate of Title Folio Identifier 139/751656, 12 Singleton Road, East Kurrajong (also known as 1200 Putty Road, Blaxlands Ridge), NSW.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment