HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Clements [2014] NSWSC 509

HP Mercantile Pty Ltd v Clements [2014] NSWSC 509

The non-recourse provision in clause 5.2(c) of the loan agreements was not displaced by any of the alleged defaults. The plaintiff failed to establish the quantum of harvesting and marketing costs and was therefore not entitled to a judgment for any money sum claimed. The plaintiff was also not entitled to judgment for principal and interest beyond sums already paid due to the continued operation of the limited recourse provision.

Parties
Plaintiff: HP Mercantile Pty Ltd; Defendant: Phillip Clements
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Managed Investment Schemes, Assignment of Debt, Limited Recourse Loans, Default and Remedies, Interpretation of Contracts, Harvesting and Marketing Costs
Contract Law Corporations Law Loan Agreements Managed Investment Schemes Assignment of Debt Limited Recourse Loans Default and Remedies Interpretation of Contracts +1 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HP Mercantile Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Phillip Clements

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff established defendant owed harvesting and marketing costs and the quantum thereof
  2. 2 Proper construction and effect of 'limited recourse' provisions in loan agreements
  3. 3 Whether events of default deprived defendant of non-recourse protection

Ratio Decidendi

The non-recourse provision in clause 5.2(c) of the loan agreements was not displaced by any of the alleged defaults. The plaintiff failed to establish the quantum of harvesting and marketing costs and was therefore not entitled to a judgment for any money sum claimed. The plaintiff was also not entitled to judgment for principal and interest beyond sums already paid due to the continued operation of the limited recourse provision.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings are dismissed.
  • Parties to be heard as to costs.