Tarragundi Pty Ltd and anor v Michael John Gibb & anor [1984] FCA 440

Tarragundi Pty Ltd and anor v Michael John Gibb & anor [1984] FCA 440

There are serious questions of law regarding the construction of the agreements that preclude the granting of summary judgment on the cross-claim.

Parties
Applicant: Tarragundi Pty Ltd; Applicant: Penarth Investments Pty Ltd; Respondent: Michael John Gibbs; Respondent: Geoffrey G. Gibbs; Respondent: John Gojko Radunovich; Respondent: Michael Boyd King; Respondent: Margaret Jean King; Respondent: James Ferdinand Conlan; Respondent: Patrick Preston; Respondent: David John Mack; Respondent: Pasquale Dichiera
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 1984
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim and Summary Judgment Motion / Interlocutory (summary Judgment on Cross Claim)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Indemnity, Sale of Business, Construction of Agreements
Trade Practices Contracts Summary Judgment Indemnity Sale of Business Construction of Agreements

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarragundi Pty Ltd

Applicant

Penarth Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Michael John Gibbs

Respondent

Geoffrey G. Gibbs

Respondent

John Gojko Radunovich

Respondent

Michael Boyd King

Respondent

Margaret Jean King

Respondent

James Ferdinand Conlan

Respondent

Patrick Preston

Respondent

David John Mack

Respondent

Pasquale Dichiera

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim and Summary Judgment Motion / Interlocutory (summary Judgment on Cross Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the respondents' cross-claim for indemnity regarding a loan
  2. 2 Proper construction of agreements related to sale of units in trust and company shares
  3. 3 Whether there is an implied obligation on applicant to indemnify respondents for a loan

Ratio Decidendi

There are serious questions of law regarding the construction of the agreements that preclude the granting of summary judgment on the cross-claim.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused

Orders

  • Paragraph 3 of the first respondents' notice of motion filed 10 September 1984 is dismissed.
  • The costs of the hearing be reserved.