BM Sydney Building Materials Pty Ltd v ZH (Holdings) Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] NSWDC 224

BM Sydney Building Materials Pty Ltd v ZH (Holdings) Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] NSWDC 224

The agreement was validly executed by the third defendant as director and secretary of ZHH, and ZHH was identified as the customer/buyer. There was no ambiguity in the agreement or guarantee; the third defendant signed as guarantor, and both he and the fourth defendant guaranteed ZHH's obligations. Section 127(1) of the Corporations Act is not mandatory, and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the assumption of due execution pursuant to s 129(5). The plaintiff's claim was established, and the third defendant is liable for the amount claimed plus interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment; Verdict and Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first, third and fourth defendants.
Legal Topics
['guarantee' 'principles of Construction']
['contract'] ['guarantee' 'principles of Construction']

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

Civil / Principal Judgment; Verdict and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the agreement and guarantee bound the third defendant as guarantor for the first defendant's obligations under the supply agreement." 'Whether the agreement was validly executed under s 127 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether any ambiguity existed in the identity of the customer or the terms of the guarantee, and if so, its effect.']

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was validly executed by the third defendant as director and secretary of ZHH, and ZHH was identified as the customer/buyer. There was no ambiguity in the agreement or guarantee; the third defendant signed as guarantor, and both he and the fourth defendant guaranteed ZHH's obligations. Section 127(1) of the Corporations Act is not mandatory, and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the assumption of due execution pursuant to s 129(5). The plaintiff's claim was established, and the third defendant is liable for the amount claimed plus interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first, third and fourth defendants.

Orders

  • ['Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the first, third and fourth defendants in the sum of $153,342.78 plus interest of $122,430.55, total $275,773.33.' "First, third and/or fourth defendants to pay the plaintiff's solicitor/client costs of $70,304.35 and any other indemnity costs to be agreed or assessed."...