Money v Westpac Banking Corporation of Australia [1986] FCA 366

Money v Westpac Banking Corporation of Australia [1986] FCA 366

There exists a real question to be tried concerning the nature and terms of the mortgage, possible misrepresentation, and repayment of advances. The applicant's case cannot be said to be so clearly untenable as to justify summary judgment. Leave to amend pleadings is granted given the substantive factual assertions and question of law raised.

Parties
Applicant: Brian Alexander Langtree Venn Money; First Respondent: Westpac Banking Corporation; Second Respondent: Suzanne Finucane Money; Cross Claimant: Westpac Banking Corporation; Cross Respondent: Brian Alexander Langtree Venn Money
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 1986
Procedural Posture
Banking Dispute Regarding Mortgage Liability / Interlocutory Motions – Summary Judgment and Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Bank's motion for summary judgment dismissed; applicant granted leave to amend pleadings; costs reserved to hearing of principal application.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Mortgage Liability, Misrepresentation, Mistake, Estoppel, Misleading Conduct, Rectification, Surety Bond
Civil Procedure Banking Law Summary Judgment Mortgage Liability Misrepresentation Mistake Estoppel Misleading Conduct +2 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Alexander Langtree Venn Money

Applicant

Westpac Banking Corporation

First Respondent

Suzanne Finucane Money

Second Respondent

Westpac Banking Corporation

Cross Claimant

Brian Alexander Langtree Venn Money

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Banking Dispute Regarding Mortgage Liability / Interlocutory Motions – Summary Judgment and Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted in relation to Bank's cross-claim based on mortgage liability
  2. 2 Whether applicant should be granted leave to file amended pleadings raising misrepresentation, mistake, misleading conduct, and rectification
  3. 3 Whether liability under the mortgage is limited to $35,000

Ratio Decidendi

There exists a real question to be tried concerning the nature and terms of the mortgage, possible misrepresentation, and repayment of advances. The applicant's case cannot be said to be so clearly untenable as to justify summary judgment. Leave to amend pleadings is granted given the substantive factual assertions and question of law raised.

Court Disposition

Bank's motion for summary judgment dismissed; applicant granted leave to amend pleadings; costs reserved to hearing of principal application.

Orders

  • The motion of the first respondent cross-claimant for summary judgment pursuant to Order 18 Rule 4 and Order 20 Rule 1 be dismissed.
  • Leave be granted to the applicant cross-respondent to amend the Statement of Claim and Defence to Cross-claim in accordance with the minutes of proposed amendments filed.