WFM Motors Pty Limited v Bar M Pty Limited (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1752

WFM Motors Pty Limited v Bar M Pty Limited (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1752

The appropriate interest figure was the contractual calculation to 2 December 2022 because, even assuming judgment could and should have been entered on or shortly after 8 October 2020, s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and cl 3.3 of the loan agreement justified varying post-judgment interest to the higher contractual rate. The indemnity orders sought by Giovanna against Bar M were refused because no cross-claim for that relief had been brought and the relevant substantive rights had not been litigated. The Principal Judgment was clarified to confirm that the reasoning and conclusion dismissing Giovanna's cross-claim applied to the Neild Avenue Guarantee.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Consequential Orders in Equity Proceedings / Final Orders to Give Effect to Principal Judgment
Outcome
Orders made to give effect to the Principal Judgment; interest allowed at the contractual rate; proposed indemnity orders declined; ambiguity in the Principal Judgment clarified; Giovanna's cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interest on Judgment' 'post Judgment Interest' 'acknowledgment of Liquidated Claim' 'indemnity Without Cross Claim' 'clarification of Reasons' 'guarantee']
['civil Procedure' 'judgments and Orders' 'equity' 'contract Law'] ['interest on Judgment' 'post Judgment Interest' 'acknowledgment of Liquidated Claim' 'indemnity Without Cross Claim' 'clarification of Reasons' 'guarantee']

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

Consequential Orders in Equity Proceedings / Final Orders to Give Effect to Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interest should be calculated at the contractual rate of 8.5% per annum to 2 December 2022 notwithstanding notices acknowledging the whole of the plaintiff's claim filed on 8 October 2020 and UCPR Pt 20 r 20.34(3) and (4)." 'Whether indemnity orders should be made in favour of Giovanna against Bar M where no cross-claim for that indemnity had been filed.' "Whether the Principal Judgment required clarification concerning Giovanna's guarantee of the 2018 Lease, referred to as the Neild Avenue Guarantee."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate interest figure was the contractual calculation to 2 December 2022 because, even assuming judgment could and should have been entered on or shortly after 8 October 2020, s 101 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) and cl 3.3 of the loan agreement justified varying post-judgment interest to the higher contractual rate. The indemnity orders sought by Giovanna against Bar M were refused because no cross-claim for that relief had been brought and the relevant substantive rights had not been litigated. The Principal Judgment was clarified to confirm that the reasoning and conclusion dismissing Giovanna's cross-claim applied to the Neild Avenue Guarantee.

Court Disposition

Orders made to give effect to the Principal Judgment; interest allowed at the contractual rate; proposed indemnity orders declined; ambiguity in the Principal Judgment clarified; Giovanna's cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Interest was to be calculated at 8.5% per annum on $1,118,231.52 from 27 August 2020 to 2 December 2022 inclusive, less $29,424.66 paid in reduction of the loan during that period.' 'The Court declined to make the indemnity orders sought in proposed orders 5 and 7.' 'Bar M undertook to the Court that, if...