Permanent Trustee Australia Limited & Anor v Saitannis [2002] NSWSC 1209

Permanent Trustee Australia Limited & Anor v Saitannis [2002] NSWSC 1209

The defences pleaded by the defendant did not raise any triable issue as there was no basis in law or fact for illegality, unconscionable dealing, or actionable negligence against the plaintiffs. There was no evidence of agency between the plaintiffs and those involved with the failed investment, nor evidence that the plaintiffs exploited any special disadvantage. The plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment After Hearing Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'unconscionable Dealing' 'illegality of Contract' 'agency' 'negligence']
['real Property' 'equity' 'banking and Finance' 'civil Procedure'] ['summary Judgment' 'unconscionable Dealing' 'illegality of Contract' 'agency' 'negligence']

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

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment After Hearing Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defences raised any triable issue to resist summary judgment' 'Whether the loan agreement and mortgage were void or voidable for illegality' 'Whether there was unconscionable dealing' 'Whether negligence or breach of statutory warranty rendered the agreements voidable']

Ratio Decidendi

The defences pleaded by the defendant did not raise any triable issue as there was no basis in law or fact for illegality, unconscionable dealing, or actionable negligence against the plaintiffs. There was no evidence of agency between the plaintiffs and those involved with the failed investment, nor evidence that the plaintiffs exploited any special disadvantage. The plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 4 to 13 of the defence struck out.' 'Summary judgment for possession of 161 King Street, Newtown NSW, with leave to issue writ of possession.' 'Summary judgment for the plaintiffs for $646,658.80.' 'Leave to apply to vary sum within six weeks; otherwise amount taken as properly calculated.' "Defendant...