Super 1000 v Pacific General Securities;Bonic v Pacific General Securities [2008] NSWSC 1222

Super 1000 v Pacific General Securities;Bonic v Pacific General Securities [2008] NSWSC 1222

Super 1000 (and Mr McLay) did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct, nor intentionally induce a breach of contract, on the evidence. Mr McLay breached fiduciary duties as a director of PacGen in securing the Finmore mortgage and April 2004 mortgage for Super 1000, but PacGen did not give informed consent. Super 1000, though knowing participant, is entitled to indefeasibility protection, precluding proprietary remedies for PacGen. PacGen is entitled to equitable compensation from Mr McLay for loss from the Finmore mortgage to the extent of Finmore's share of proceeds used for Super 1000's prior advances. Debenture holders (Paul Heathwood and Bonic) failed in claims against Super...

Parties
Plaintiff: Super 1000 Pty Ltd; Defendant: Pacific General Securities Ltd; Defendant: Finmore Holdings Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Jamie Bonic; Plaintiff: Paul Heathwood; Defendant: Mr McLay
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Post Hearing, Further Submissions Invited
Outcome
Further submissions invited from the parties.
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Fiduciary Duty, Registered Mortgage, Indefeasibility of Title, Barnes V Addy Liability, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Conventional Estoppel, Inducing Breach of Contract
Equity Corporations Real Property Torts Trade Practices Directors' Duties Fiduciary Duty Registered Mortgage +5 more

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 56 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Super 1000 Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Pacific General Securities Ltd

Defendant

Finmore Holdings Pty Ltd

Defendant

Jamie Bonic

Plaintiff

Paul Heathwood

Plaintiff

Mr McLay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Post Hearing, Further Submissions Invited

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Super 1000 and Mr McLay engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether PacGen and Finmore breached the terms of the joint venture agreement and debentures
  3. 3 Whether Mr McLay breached his fiduciary duties as a director of PacGen

Ratio Decidendi

Super 1000 (and Mr McLay) did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct, nor intentionally induce a breach of contract, on the evidence. Mr McLay breached fiduciary duties as a director of PacGen in securing the Finmore mortgage and April 2004 mortgage for Super 1000, but PacGen did not give informed consent. Super 1000, though knowing participant, is entitled to indefeasibility protection, precluding proprietary remedies for PacGen. PacGen is entitled to equitable compensation from Mr McLay for loss from the Finmore mortgage to the extent of Finmore's share of proceeds used for Super 1000's prior advances. Debenture holders (Paul Heathwood and Bonic) failed in claims against Super...

Court Disposition

Further submissions invited from the parties.

Orders

  • Super 1000 is entitled to receive moneys paid into court up to the debt secured by the 2003 and 2004 mortgages.
  • Mr McLay is liable to pay equitable compensation to PacGen for loss as described in the judgment.