Samootin v. St. George Bank Limited [2003] NSWCA 32

Samootin v. St. George Bank Limited [2003] NSWCA 32

Leave to appeal was refused because no error by Windeyer J was shown and no discretionary ground for leave was made out: the evidence against the Bank as to fraud or misleading conduct was extremely tenuous, relief against the Bank was not necessary or significantly relevant to the claimant's existing Equity Division claims, and there was no demonstrated loss that would justify depriving the Bank of recovery of money advanced on the mortgage security.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Proceedings / New South Wales Court of Appeal Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'joinder of Parties' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'mortgage Security' 'resulting Trust']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'banking' 'trade Practices'] ['summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'joinder of Parties' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'mortgage Security' 'resulting Trust']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From Summary Dismissal of Proceedings / New South Wales Court of Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Windeyer J's order dismissing proceedings against St George Bank Limited." 'Whether the claimant had evidence capable of supporting a claim that the Bank was connected with fraud or misleading conduct in relation to the purchase and mortgage of 24 and 26 Oxford Falls Road, Beacon Hill.' 'Whether proceedings against the Bank should be heard together with proceedings No.1973 of 2001.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because no error by Windeyer J was shown and no discretionary ground for leave was made out: the evidence against the Bank as to fraud or misleading conduct was extremely tenuous, relief against the Bank was not necessary or significantly relevant to the claimant's existing Equity Division claims, and there was no demonstrated loss that would justify depriving the Bank of recovery of money advanced on the mortgage security.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed with costs.']