Williamson v Carneys Lawyers Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1411

Williamson v Carneys Lawyers Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1411

The plaintiff's pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action under the Contracts Review Act 1980 because it does not allege unjust terms of the loan or deprivation of informed choice, and there is no temporal connection or duty of care owed regarding the alleged mine proposal. Accordingly, the statement of claim as against the second defendant is struck out pursuant to r 14.28 UCPR.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Statement of Claim by Plaintiff, Notice of Motion by Second Defendant to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Statement of claim as against the second defendant struck out; plaintiff to pay costs on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'unjust Contract' 'contracts Review Act' 'duty of Care in Lending' 'mortgage Enforcement']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law' 'banking Law'] ['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'unjust Contract' 'contracts Review Act' 'duty of Care in Lending' 'mortgage Enforcement']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Statement of Claim by Plaintiff, Notice of Motion by Second Defendant to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the second defendant' 'Whether the loan contract was unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980' 'Whether the second defendant owed a duty to advise the plaintiff about proposed development' 'Effect of Deed of Forbearance and clause 11 regarding release of claims']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's pleading fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action under the Contracts Review Act 1980 because it does not allege unjust terms of the loan or deprivation of informed choice, and there is no temporal connection or duty of care owed regarding the alleged mine proposal. Accordingly, the statement of claim as against the second defendant is struck out pursuant to r 14.28 UCPR.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim as against the second defendant struck out; plaintiff to pay costs on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['Statement of claim as against the second defendant is struck out.' "Plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs on the notice of motion on an indemnity basis."]