Jones v Mecu Limited [2006] NSWSC 51

Jones v Mecu Limited [2006] NSWSC 51

The loan agreement, while in writing, incorporated by reference and conduct the agreement that the Amount of Credit would be advanced by progress payments in accordance with the 80% value rule, as arranged between the defendant and the plaintiffs’ agent Ms Perricelli. There was no breach of contract by the defendant in not providing the full loan amount for immediate draw down; plaintiffs were only entitled to stage payments under this 80% rule.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Richard Mark Jones; Second Plaintiff: Essicorp Pty Ltd; Defendant: Mecu Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Authority of Agent, Construction of Contract, Progress Payments in Construction Lending
Contracts Equity Parol Evidence Rule Authority of Agent Construction of Contract Progress Payments in Construction Lending

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Mark Jones

First Plaintiff

Essicorp Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Mecu Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under the loan agreement the plaintiffs were entitled to the immediate drawdown of the full Amount of Credit or only progressive payments subject to an '80% rule'
  2. 2 Whether an agent (mortgage broker) had authority to agree to the defendant's proposed terms for progress payments
  3. 3 Whether payment by progress claims is contrary to the written loan agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The loan agreement, while in writing, incorporated by reference and conduct the agreement that the Amount of Credit would be advanced by progress payments in accordance with the 80% value rule, as arranged between the defendant and the plaintiffs’ agent Ms Perricelli. There was no breach of contract by the defendant in not providing the full loan amount for immediate draw down; plaintiffs were only entitled to stage payments under this 80% rule.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' application dismissed
  • Plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings