Reading v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2003] NSWSC 686

Reading v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2003] NSWSC 686

The amended statement of claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the First Defendant bank in fraud, negligence, unconscionable conduct, undue influence, special disability or under the Contracts Review Act, because no material facts are pleaded to support such claims and constructive knowledge is insufficient for fraud under section 42 of the Real Property Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Equity / Application to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Amended statement of claim struck out as against the First Defendant; Plaintiffs to pay First Defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['indefeasibility of Title' 'fraud Under Real Property Act' 'in Personam Claims' 'negligence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'undue Influence' 'special Disability' 'contracts Review Act']
['equity' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['indefeasibility of Title' 'fraud Under Real Property Act' 'in Personam Claims' 'negligence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'undue Influence' 'special Disability' 'contracts Review Act']

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

Equity / Application to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether amended statement of claim discloses a cause of action in fraud against the mortgagee bank' 'Whether the bank had actual knowledge of the alleged fraud' 'Whether an in personam claim exists against the mortgagee bank' 'Whether a cause of action in negligence is pleaded and sustainable' 'Whether claims in unconscionable conduct, undue influence, special disability, or under the Contracts Review Act are pleaded with sufficient particulars']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim does not disclose any reasonable cause of action against the First Defendant bank in fraud, negligence, unconscionable conduct, undue influence, special disability or under the Contracts Review Act, because no material facts are pleaded to support such claims and constructive knowledge is insufficient for fraud under section 42 of the Real Property Act.

Court Disposition

Amended statement of claim struck out as against the First Defendant; Plaintiffs to pay First Defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended statement of claim be struck out as against the First Defendant.' 'The Plaintiffs pay the costs of the First Defendant of the notice of motion filed by the First Defendant on 27 November 2002 and of the proceedings.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']