Sinclair v Camnet Finance Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 32

Sinclair v Camnet Finance Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAP 32

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not establish that she may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice. In any event, each ground failed: the Print Copy Plan and PCPV were related and Sinclair Recruitment ratified the arrangements by receiving equipment and paying invoices; the appellant had ostensible authority or the PCPV was ratified; the National Credit Code did not apply because there was no credit contract and, in any event, the transaction was commercial and Sinclair Recruitment was not a natural person or strata corporation; and the appellant was bound by the guarantee she signed because no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged or established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['enforceability of Guarantee' 'formation and Execution of Contract' 'non Est Factum' 'ratification by Conduct' 'ostensible Authority' 'national Credit Code Applicability' 'leave to Appeal']
['contract Law' 'guarantees and Indemnities' 'consumer Credit' 'civil Procedure'] ['enforceability of Guarantee' 'formation and Execution of Contract' 'non Est Factum' 'ratification by Conduct' 'ostensible Authority' 'national Credit Code Applicability' 'leave to Appeal']

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

Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision on Leave to Appeal and Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), Sch 4, cl 12.' 'Whether the Print Copy Plan and Print Copy Plan Variation were related documents and enforceable despite the Print Copy Plan not being signed by a director of Sinclair Recruitment.' 'Whether the appellant had authority to sign the Print Copy Plan Variation on behalf of Sinclair Recruitment, or whether Sinclair Recruitment ratified it.' 'Whether the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) and National Credit Code applied so as to render the guarantee void.' 'Whether the appellant was personally bound by the guarantee despite denying that she wrote "CEO" and despite any failure to read the document.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant did not establish that she may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice. In any event, each ground failed: the Print Copy Plan and PCPV were related and Sinclair Recruitment ratified the arrangements by receiving equipment and paying invoices; the appellant had ostensible authority or the PCPV was ratified; the National Credit Code did not apply because there was no credit contract and, in any event, the transaction was commercial and Sinclair Recruitment was not a natural person or strata corporation; and the appellant was bound by the guarantee she signed because no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged or established.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.']