Leitch, D.H. & Ors v Natwest Australia Bank Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 104

Leitch, D.H. & Ors v Natwest Australia Bank Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 104

There was no claim for relief affecting the exercise of the bank’s mortgagee rights presently before the trial judge; the applicant was unable to provide security or payment to safeguard the bank’s position; property value was agreed to reflect market value; and the applicant’s case was not strong. Therefore, there was no justification for granting an interlocutory injunction and the application was dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: David Henry Leitch; Second Applicant: Alma Margaret Leitch; Third Applicant: Gary David Leitch; Fourth Applicant: Gude Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Fifth Applicant: Glen Pacific Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); Sixth Applicant: Glandore Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation); First Respondent: Natwest Australia Bank Limited; Second Respondent: Peter Murray Walker; Third Respondent: Glandore Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Injunction Pending Judgment
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Mortgagee Sale, Unconscionable Conduct, Relief Under Trade Practices Act
Equity Commercial Law Interlocutory Injunction Mortgagee Sale Unconscionable Conduct Relief Under Trade Practices 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Henry Leitch

First Applicant

Alma Margaret Leitch

Second Applicant

Gary David Leitch

Third Applicant

Gude Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed)

Fourth Applicant

Glen Pacific Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Fifth Applicant

Glandore Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Sixth Applicant

Natwest Australia Bank Limited

First Respondent

Peter Murray Walker

Second Respondent

Glandore Pty Limited (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (In Liquidation)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Injunction Pending Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the bank and its receiver from selling the mortgaged property known as Biram Stud
  2. 2 Whether a claim for relief affecting the bank's rights as mortgagee remains to be determined by the trial judge
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's inability to provide security impacts the grant of equitable relief

Ratio Decidendi

There was no claim for relief affecting the exercise of the bank’s mortgagee rights presently before the trial judge; the applicant was unable to provide security or payment to safeguard the bank’s position; property value was agreed to reflect market value; and the applicant’s case was not strong. Therefore, there was no justification for granting an interlocutory injunction and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for an injunction be dismissed.
  • The fourth applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed.