Wilson v Moss [1909] HCA 7

Wilson v Moss [1909] HCA 7

The action to enforce a promissory note made after commencement of the Money Lenders Act 1906 (Vict.) in respect of a loan advanced before the Act is subject to sec. 4, empowering the Court to reopen the whole transaction and relieve the debtor from payment of sums in excess of what is fair and reasonable, and in this case, the interest was excessive and the debt had in substance been repaid prior to the Act, so judgment should be entered for the defendant.

Parties
Defendant: Wilson; Plaintiff: Moss
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Money Lending, Excessive Interest, Re Opening Transactions, Retrospective Operation of Statutes
Contract Law Banking and Finance Law Money Lending Excessive Interest Re Opening Transactions Retrospective Operation of Statutes

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilson

Defendant

Moss

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action upon a promissory note is an action to enforce an agreement or security within sec. 4 of the Money Lenders Act 1906 (Vict.)
  2. 2 Whether the Money Lenders Act 1906 operates retrospectively to loans and renewals made before its commencement
  3. 3 Whether the rate of interest charged was excessive within the meaning of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The action to enforce a promissory note made after commencement of the Money Lenders Act 1906 (Vict.) in respect of a loan advanced before the Act is subject to sec. 4, empowering the Court to reopen the whole transaction and relieve the debtor from payment of sums in excess of what is fair and reasonable, and in this case, the interest was excessive and the debt had in substance been repaid prior to the Act, so judgment should be entered for the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria discharged.
  • Judgment for the defendant (Wilson) entered.