Gurfinkel v Bentley Pty Ltd [1966] HCA 75
The majority of the High Court (Menzies, Windeyer, and Owen JJ) held that, on the evidence, the transactions were genuine sales with options to repurchase, not loans secured by mortgage; the written agreements expressed the true nature of the transactions, and there was insufficient evidence to treat them as mortgages. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['conveyancing' 'mortgages Vs Sale With Option to Repurchase' 'equitable Mortgage' 'admissibility of Parol Evidence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether transfers of land, absolute in form with option to repurchase, were in fact intended as mortgages (security for loans) or genuine sales with repurchase options' 'Whether parol evidence is admissible to show the true character of the transactions']
Ratio Decidendi
The majority of the High Court (Menzies, Windeyer, and Owen JJ) held that, on the evidence, the transactions were genuine sales with options to repurchase, not loans secured by mortgage; the written agreements expressed the true nature of the transactions, and there was insufficient evidence to treat them as mortgages. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeals dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment