Across Australia Finance v Bassenger [2008] NSWSC 799

Across Australia Finance v Bassenger [2008] NSWSC 799

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the consent orders, finding no irregularity or lack of authority in their making; the first defendant had independent legal advice and was aware of her liability; there was no sustainable defence under the Contracts Review Act or grounds of duress or...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Consent Orders / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application to set aside orders dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judgments and Orders' 'consent Orders' 'authority of Legal Practitioners' 'contract' 'mortgages' 'contracts Review Act' 'costs']
['equity'] ['judgments and Orders' 'consent Orders' 'authority of Legal Practitioners' 'contract' 'mortgages' 'contracts Review Act' 'costs']

Source-derived case record

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 to Set Aside Consent Orders / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether consent orders should be set aside on the basis they were irregularly obtained or entered without instructions' 'Whether the contract/compromise embodied in the orders could be set aside under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) or on other grounds' 'Whether legal practitioners had authority to compromise the litigation' 'Whether economic duress affected the validity of the consent orders' 'Whether the Court should decline to give effect to the compromise in the interests of justice' 'Whether any arguable defence was available to the claim']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application to set aside the consent orders, finding no irregularity or lack of authority in their making; the first defendant had independent legal advice and was aware of her liability; there was no sustainable defence under the Contracts Review Act or grounds of duress or unconscionability; and legal practitioners had sufficient authority to compromise the claims on behalf of the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside orders dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed by the first to fourth defendants on 13 May 2008 is dismissed.' 'Orders numbered 1, 2 and 3 made on 13 May 2008 are discharged.' 'Orders 1 and 2 made on 21 May 2008 are discharged.' 'Any application by the plaintiff to enforce the undertaking as to damages given on 21 May 2008 is to be...