Foyster v Green [2000] NSWSC 189

Foyster v Green [2000] NSWSC 189

The claim for rectification was dismissed because the evidence did not sufficiently establish both parties' true intention that all causes of action against ANZ were to be assigned. In addition, even if rectification were granted, it would be purposeless due to the operation of s86 of the Bankruptcy Act providing set-off of claims, such that Foyster would have nothing of value to assign or pursue against ANZ.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lloyd Foyster; First Defendant: John Duncan Green; Second Defendant: Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Final Judgment—claim for Rectification
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification, Mistake in Contract, Assignment of Causes of Action, Trusteeship, Bankruptcy
Equity Rectification Mistake in Contract Assignment of Causes of Action Trusteeship Bankruptcy

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyd Foyster

Plaintiff

John Duncan Green

First Defendant

Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding / Final Judgment—claim for Rectification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a written agreement should be rectified to reflect the true intention of the parties regarding assignment of causes of action
  2. 2 Whether there was clear and convincing proof of the parties' true intention and mistake
  3. 3 Whether third party rights would be affected by rectification

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for rectification was dismissed because the evidence did not sufficiently establish both parties' true intention that all causes of action against ANZ were to be assigned. In addition, even if rectification were granted, it would be purposeless due to the operation of s86 of the Bankruptcy Act providing set-off of claims, such that Foyster would have nothing of value to assign or pursue against ANZ.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The summons be dismissed.
  • The plaintiff pay the costs of the defendants, those of the first defendant on a submitting basis.