Commonwealth Bank of Australia v MacDonald [2000] NSWSC 93

The facts and circumstances of the loan advances and the second defendant's understanding of the instruments are more properly determined at trial. The summary judgment application is dismissed as there exists a real question to be tried regarding unconscionable conduct and equitable relief.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 March 2000
Procedural Posture: Summary Judgment / Motion for Summary Judgment Disposition
Outcome: Motion for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics: ['summary Judgment' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'equitable Relief' 'mortgages' 'guarantees']

['banking Law' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Judgment' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'equitable Relief' 'mortgages' 'guarantees']

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

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment / Motion for Summary Judgment Disposition

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether summary judgment should be granted against the second defendant for payment and possession pursuant to the home loan and equitable charge.' "Whether the conduct of the bank in obtaining the second defendant's signature constituted unconscionable conduct warranting equitable relief." "Whether the second defendant benefited from the loan advances and had an understanding of the transaction's effect in essential respects under the principles established in Garcia v National Australia Bank Limited and Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio."]

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Motion for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

["The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 5 August 1999 is dismissed." "The plaintiff is to pay the second defendant's costs."]