BYLANDER v MULTILINK [2001] NSWCA 53

BYLANDER v MULTILINK [2001] NSWCA 53

The Yerkey v Jones defence was sufficiently pleaded by alleging that Mrs Satchi received no benefit or consideration from signing the guarantee, was not abandoned, and was supported by uncontradicted evidence. In substance Mrs Satchi received no real benefit from the loan: her role as director and shareholder, limited involvement in the company, and any incidental or accidental benefit from funds passing through the joint account did not prevent her from being a volunteer. The trial judge therefore erred in rejecting the defence and entering judgment against her.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'guarantee' 'husband and Wife' 'yerkey V Jones Defence' 'volunteer Surety']
['equity' 'contract Law'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'guarantee' 'husband and Wife' 'yerkey V Jones Defence' 'volunteer Surety']

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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a defence based on Yerkey v Jones and Garcia was open to Mrs Satchi on the pleadings.' 'Whether any Yerkey v Jones defence had been abandoned at trial.' 'Whether Mrs Satchi was a volunteer in giving the guarantee.' "Whether Mrs Satchi's status as director and shareholder of the borrower, involvement in the company, and the payment of loan funds through a joint bank account prevented the defence from being established."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Yerkey v Jones defence was sufficiently pleaded by alleging that Mrs Satchi received no benefit or consideration from signing the guarantee, was not abandoned, and was supported by uncontradicted evidence. In substance Mrs Satchi received no real benefit from the loan: her role as director and shareholder, limited involvement in the company, and any incidental or accidental benefit from funds passing through the joint account did not prevent her from being a volunteer. The trial judge therefore erred in rejecting the defence and entering judgment against her.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['That the appeal be allowed.' 'That the judgment for the third defendant entered in the District Court be set aside and in lieu thereof there be judgment for the third defendant in the action with costs.' "The respondent should pay the appellants' costs of the appeal but, if qualified, should have a certificate...