Southern Cross Credit Union Ltd v Teale [2014] NSWSC 606

Southern Cross Credit Union Ltd v Teale [2014] NSWSC 606

The Court found that none of the matters pleaded by the First Defendant, including documentary irregularities, alleged misrepresentations, statutory breaches, or arguments about contractual variation, constituted a defence in law to the Plaintiff's claim for possession under the guarantee. Accordingly, the Defence was struck out and the Plaintiff was granted leave to obtain default judgment.

Parties
Plaintiff: Southern Cross Credit Union Ltd; First Defendant: Kelvin Lindsay Teale; Second Defendant: Mary Anne Louise Teale
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Possession of Land and Related Orders / Interlocutory; Defence Struck Out; Leave for Default Judgment
Outcome
Defence of the First Defendant is struck out; Plaintiff given leave to obtain default judgment against both Defendants.
Legal Topics
Possession of Land, Guarantor Liability, Default Judgment, Strike Out of Defence
Real Property Possession of Land Guarantor Liability Default Judgment Strike Out of Defence

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southern Cross Credit Union Ltd

Plaintiff

Kelvin Lindsay Teale

First Defendant

Mary Anne Louise Teale

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Proceedings for Possession of Land and Related Orders / Interlocutory; Defence Struck Out; Leave for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants have a defence to the Plaintiff's claim for possession based on the guarantee and alleged breaches
  2. 2 Whether matters raised by the First Defendant constitute a valid defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that none of the matters pleaded by the First Defendant, including documentary irregularities, alleged misrepresentations, statutory breaches, or arguments about contractual variation, constituted a defence in law to the Plaintiff's claim for possession under the guarantee. Accordingly, the Defence was struck out and the Plaintiff was granted leave to obtain default judgment.

Court Disposition

Defence of the First Defendant is struck out; Plaintiff given leave to obtain default judgment against both Defendants.

Orders

  • Defence of the First Defendant filed 23 April 2014 is struck out.
  • Plaintiff is given leave to obtain default judgment against both Defendants.