AKRON SECURITIES LTD v ILIFFE AND ORS (No 2) [1997] NSWCA 11

AKRON SECURITIES LTD v ILIFFE AND ORS (No 2) [1997] NSWCA 11

The fair and effective way is to treat the appellant as having made good the minimum receipts guarantee as at 1 August 1991, respondents use that sum to pay Akron what was due for lease residual and loan principal, and all further calculations and interest are to be applied accordingly with set-off and restitution in alignment with contractual and statutory interest provisions.

Parties
Appellant: Akron Securities Ltd; Respondent: Iliffe; Respondent: other respondents (second and third)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Consequential Orders
Outcome
appeal allowed; orders of Rolfe J vacated and substituted; costs orders adjusted
Legal Topics
Interest Calculation, Restitution, Costs, Set Off, Trade Practices Act S52, Contractual Remedies
Commercial Law Interest Calculation Restitution Costs Set Off Trade Practices Act S52 Contractual Remedies

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akron Securities Ltd

Appellant

Iliffe

Respondent

other respondents (second and third)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate method for calculating interest and restitution after rescission for breach of s52 Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 Appropriate consequential orders to restore parties to their pre-judgment positions

Ratio Decidendi

The fair and effective way is to treat the appellant as having made good the minimum receipts guarantee as at 1 August 1991, respondents use that sum to pay Akron what was due for lease residual and loan principal, and all further calculations and interest are to be applied accordingly with set-off and restitution in alignment with contractual and statutory interest provisions.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; orders of Rolfe J vacated and substituted; costs orders adjusted

Orders

  • Judgment for appellant against each respondent: first respondent $61,078.24, second and third respondents $30,539.12 each, effective 18 August 1994.
  • Interest payable on said judgments at 19% per annum on monthly rests, pursuant to s95 Supreme Court Act.