BOSSELL v COMPUR PTY LTD [1991] NSWCA 25

BOSSELL v COMPUR PTY LTD [1991] NSWCA 25

The Court found no agreement or estoppel for Bossell’s claimed set-off, that Compur could be classed as a moneylender and had failed to comply with s22, but that the trial judge’s discretion under s30A was properly exercised in Compur’s favour because Compur acted honestly and ought fairly to be excused, and that only simple interest was recoverable due to lack of agreement for compound interest.

Parties
Appellant: Bossell; Respondent: Compur Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Loans, Estoppel, Moneylending Act 1941, Discretionary Relief, Credibility of Witnesses, Simple Interest Vs Compound Interest
Contract Law Banking and Finance Law Loans Estoppel Moneylending Act 1941 Discretionary Relief Credibility of Witnesses Simple Interest Vs Compound Interest

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bossell

Appellant

Compur Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement or estoppel entitling Bossell to a set-off against moneys advanced to him by Compur
  2. 2 Whether Compur was a 'moneylender' under the Moneylending Act 1941 and the consequence of non-compliance with s22 of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Court should exercise discretion in Compur's favour under s30A of the Moneylending Act 1941

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no agreement or estoppel for Bossell’s claimed set-off, that Compur could be classed as a moneylender and had failed to comply with s22, but that the trial judge’s discretion under s30A was properly exercised in Compur’s favour because Compur acted honestly and ought fairly to be excused, and that only simple interest was recoverable due to lack of agreement for compound interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.