Bahadori & 2 Ors v Permanent Mortgages & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 79

Bahadori & 2 Ors v Permanent Mortgages & 3 Ors [2007] NSWSC 79

The appeal failed because no error of law was shown. Acceptance of the 13 November 2002 letter did not create a binding contract before the declarations, including because the letter was expressed as indicative and the identity of the lender was not revealed. The lenders did not know or have reason to believe at the time of the declarations that the credit was to be applied wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes; the evidence showed only that investment or business purpose was communicated to them, and the existence of residential security and refinancing was inconclusive. The declarations substantially complied with the required form, and making them under...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW / Supreme Court Appeal on a Question With Respect to a Matter of Law, Including Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decision affirmed; summons dismissed; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['consumer Credit Code Applicability' 'business Purpose Declarations' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'formation of Contract on Acceptance of Letter of Offer' 'appeal on Question of Law']
['consumer Credit Law' 'administrative Law' 'contract Law'] ['consumer Credit Code Applicability' 'business Purpose Declarations' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'formation of Contract on Acceptance of Letter of Offer' 'appeal on Question of Law']

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

Appeal From Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of NSW / Supreme Court Appeal on a Question With Respect to a Matter of Law, Including Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the declarations were made before entering into the contract for the purposes of s 11(2) of the Consumer Credit Code.' 'Whether the credit providers knew or had reason to believe within the meaning of s 11(3) of the Consumer Credit Code that the credit was in fact being applied wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes.' 'Whether, if the declarations were ineffective, the credit was provided or intended to be provided wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes within s 6(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Code.' 'Whether the declarations substantially complied with cl 10 of the Consumer Credit (New South Wales) Regulations.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because no error of law was shown. Acceptance of the 13 November 2002 letter did not create a binding contract before the declarations, including because the letter was expressed as indicative and the identity of the lender was not revealed. The lenders did not know or have reason to believe at the time of the declarations that the credit was to be applied wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic or household purposes; the evidence showed only that investment or business purpose was communicated to them, and the existence of residential security and refinancing was inconclusive. The declarations substantially complied with the required form, and making them under...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decision affirmed; summons dismissed; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The decision of Senior Tribunal Member Durie dated 2 May 2006 is affirmed.' 'The summons filed 13 June 2006 is dismissed.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed."]