Jones, B, & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 13

Jones, B, & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 13

The applicants failed to establish a sufficient basis for relief under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974; the respondent's actions and statements did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. There was no requirement of a notice period before exercising the power of sale under a demand mortgage in the circumstances. Balance of convenience weighed decisively against granting any interim injunction.

Parties
First Applicant: Barry Fenton Jones; First Applicant: Shirley Joy Jones; Second Applicant: Barry Fenton Jones and Shirley Joy Jones as Trustees of the Clifden Trust; Third Applicant: B.F. Jones & Co.; Fourth Applicant: Yullah Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Second Respondent: H.C. and S.P. Hallet
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 January 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Mortgagee's Power of Sale, Injunctive Relief
Trade Practices Land Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Mortgagee's Power of Sale Injunctive Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Fenton Jones

First Applicant

Shirley Joy Jones

First Applicant

Barry Fenton Jones and Shirley Joy Jones as Trustees of the Clifden Trust

Second Applicant

B.F. Jones & Co.

Third Applicant

Yullah Pty. Ltd.

Fourth Applicant

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

First Respondent

H.C. and S.P. Hallet

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's exercise of the power of sale under the mortgage was valid under the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a sufficient basis for relief under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974; the respondent's actions and statements did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. There was no requirement of a notice period before exercising the power of sale under a demand mortgage in the circumstances. Balance of convenience weighed decisively against granting any interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the costs of the first respondent and the second respondent to be taxed.