GRIMMOND v TAYLOR; MERV GRIMMOND PTY LTD v TAYLOR [1988] NSWCA 57

GRIMMOND v TAYLOR; MERV GRIMMOND PTY LTD v TAYLOR [1988] NSWCA 57

The appellants failed to establish that the relevant debts were assigned to Shell in accordance with s12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 because the trial judge was not satisfied proper notice of assignment was given. Consequently, the respondents were always entitled to sue in their own names for recovery of the debts. There was also sufficient evidence for the trial judge to find that the debts were not effectively assigned at law, and the reassignment issue was therefore not determinative.

Parties
Appellant: Grimmond; Appellant: Merv Grimmond Pty Ltd; Respondent: Taylor (Mr and Mrs Taylor)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Notice of Assignment, Conveyancing Act 1919 S12, Consideration for Reassignment
Commercial Law Assignment of Debts Assignment of Debt Notice of Assignment Conveyancing Act 1919 S12 Consideration for Reassignment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grimmond

Appellant

Merv Grimmond Pty Ltd

Appellant

Taylor (Mr and Mrs Taylor)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debts in question were assigned at law to Shell under the Deed of Assignment
  2. 2 Whether the appellants received notice of assignment pursuant to s12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919
  3. 3 Whether the reassignment of the debts from Shell to the respondents was effective in law or equity

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to establish that the relevant debts were assigned to Shell in accordance with s12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 because the trial judge was not satisfied proper notice of assignment was given. Consequently, the respondents were always entitled to sue in their own names for recovery of the debts. There was also sufficient evidence for the trial judge to find that the debts were not effectively assigned at law, and the reassignment issue was therefore not determinative.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.