Jaeger v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd [2018] NSWCA 116

Jaeger v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd [2018] NSWCA 116

The appeal failed because the appellant's challenges to the Sale Notices, payment of consideration and conditions precedent were new points not taken at trial and could have been met by evidence had they been raised below. In any event, the Sale Notices were not assignments but offers to assign which were accepted for valuable consideration, making Adelaide Bank the equitable owner of the choses in action irrespective of compliance with s 205 of the Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), and no error was shown in the primary judge's rejection of the attack on the assignments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court of New South Wales Judgment Dated 1 December 2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Legal Topics
['points Not Taken at Trial' 'assignment of Choses in Action' 'legal and Equitable Assignments' 'sale Notices Offering to Assign Loans' 'authority of Signatories' 'pleading Material Facts']
['appeal' 'equity' 'property' 'civil Procedure'] ['points Not Taken at Trial' 'assignment of Choses in Action' 'legal and Equitable Assignments' 'sale Notices Offering to Assign Loans' 'authority of Signatories' 'pleading Material Facts']

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court of New South Wales Judgment Dated 1 December 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be permitted to raise on appeal challenges to the authority of officers who signed Sale Notices when those points were not taken at trial.' 'Whether the appellant should be permitted to raise on appeal a new contention that consideration for certain loans was paid to a company other than ABL Nominees Pty Ltd.' 'Whether non-compliance with s 205 of the Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT) affected Sale Notices that operated as offers to assign rather than assignments.' "Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the appellant's attack on the validity of the assignments."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the appellant's challenges to the Sale Notices, payment of consideration and conditions precedent were new points not taken at trial and could have been met by evidence had they been raised below. In any event, the Sale Notices were not assignments but offers to assign which were accepted for valuable consideration, making Adelaide Bank the equitable owner of the choses in action irrespective of compliance with s 205 of the Civil Law (Property) Act 2006 (ACT), and no error was shown in the primary judge's rejection of the attack on the assignments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed, with costs.']