Tonk Sydney Pty Ltd v ILend Capital Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1350

Tonk Sydney Pty Ltd v ILend Capital Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1350

The Mandates to Act dated 15 March 2022 were not binding contracts, as there was no objective intention to create immediate legal relations and no prescribed acceptance (Docusign) occurred. Even if they were binding, no fees became due as defendants failed to provide genuine offers of finance or loan approvals. No injustice to the defendants arises from refusal of adjournment; granting it would unduly prejudice plaintiffs. PPSR registrations based on the Mandates are invalid and must be removed.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Tonk Sydney Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: JDC Project Management Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: Domenico Ciliegi; Fourth Plaintiff: Matthew Martino; First Defendant: ILend Capital Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Marwan Salim; Third Defendant: Registrar of Personal Property Securities
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment (procedural & Substantive)
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeed; cross-claim dismissed; adjournment application refused.
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Intention to Create Legal Relations, Condition Precedent, Contractual Construction, Adjournment Applications, Security Interests, Australian Consumer Law
Contract Equity Civil Procedure Contract Formation Intention to Create Legal Relations Condition Precedent Contractual Construction Adjournment Applications +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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tonk Sydney Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

JDC Project Management Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Domenico Ciliegi

Third Plaintiff

Matthew Martino

Fourth Plaintiff

ILend Capital Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Marwan Salim

Second Defendant

Registrar of Personal Property Securities

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment (procedural & Substantive)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the 'Mandates to Act' dated 15 March 2022 binding contracts?
  2. 2 Are the amounts claimed (brokerage fees, commitment fee) payable under the Mandates?
  3. 3 Should the defendants' adjournment application be granted?

Ratio Decidendi

The Mandates to Act dated 15 March 2022 were not binding contracts, as there was no objective intention to create immediate legal relations and no prescribed acceptance (Docusign) occurred. Even if they were binding, no fees became due as defendants failed to provide genuine offers of finance or loan approvals. No injustice to the defendants arises from refusal of adjournment; granting it would unduly prejudice plaintiffs. PPSR registrations based on the Mandates are invalid and must be removed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeed; cross-claim dismissed; adjournment application refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that ILend Capital Pty Ltd's Mandates are not binding and do not create enforceable obligations.
  • Declaration that ILend Capital Pty Ltd has no valid entitlement to register security interests under PPSA.