MCDONALD v MCDONALD [1999] NSWSC 756

MCDONALD v MCDONALD [1999] NSWSC 756

The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because the dispute raised substantive issues requiring trial, particularly matters connected with the equity proceedings and estoppel, and there were factual questions about notice under the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 in relation to the first defendant. However, discrete allegations that did not raise a defence to the plaintiff's claim or were not persisted in were liable to be struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Claim for Possession Founded on Alleged Default Under a Mortgage / Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Judgment or Striking Out of Defences
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused; parts of the Defences struck out; plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'striking Out Defences' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'possession of Property' 'estoppel' 'farm Debt Mediation Act Notice']
['civil Procedure' 'mortgage Law' 'equity' 'farm Debt Mediation'] ['summary Judgment' 'striking Out Defences' 'mortgage Enforcement' 'possession of Property' 'estoppel' 'farm Debt Mediation Act Notice']

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

Claim for Possession Founded on Alleged Default Under a Mortgage / Plaintiff's Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Judgment or Striking Out of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.' "Whether all or parts of the first defendant's Defence should be struck out." "Whether all or parts of the second defendant's Defence should be struck out." 'Whether issues concerning estoppel and the related equity proceedings needed to proceed to trial.' 'Whether there were factual questions about compliance with s 8 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 in relation to the first defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because the dispute raised substantive issues requiring trial, particularly matters connected with the equity proceedings and estoppel, and there were factual questions about notice under the Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994 in relation to the first defendant. However, discrete allegations that did not raise a defence to the plaintiff's claim or were not persisted in were liable to be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused; parts of the Defences struck out; plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The application for summary judgment is refused.' 'Paragraph 4 of the Defence of the first defendant is struck out.' 'Paragraphs 13 and 18 of the Defence of the second defendant are struck out.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the application.']