5 May 2015
Summary judgment was granted because the evidence established the advances totalling $360,000 and that formal demand was made, the defendant raised no reasonably arguable defence, and interest was appropriately awarded at 5% per annum under the Judicature Act from the date of issue of proceedings.
13 Dec 2011
Defendant had no arguable defence: the 14 June 2010 letter constituted a valid demand to Tippins as principal debtor/guarantor; the mortgagee was not required to complete a sale before suing the guarantor; no sufficient representation, reasonable reliance, detriment or unconscionability was established to support equitable estoppel or laches; delay did not preclude enforcement; accordingly summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff with contractual interest to date and solicitor–client costs, but the court refused to order continuation of contractual interest after judgment.
8 Jul 2011
Plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of 'Credit' outstanding under the facility required to establish liability under the first guarantee, so summary judgment on that guarantee was refused; however, the cross guarantee unambiguously covered all guaranteed indebtedness and the plaintiff proved Rapson's indebtedness and made proper demand, establishing the defendant's capped secondary liability of $250,000 under the second guarantee, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment for that sum, statutory interest from commencement of proceedings, and indemnity costs under the cross guarantee subje…
26 Jul 2010
Wiltshire Investments, as valid assignee of ASB Bank’s rights, is entitled to enforce the guarantees; the defendants produced no admissible or sufficient evidence of a defence based on assurances, estoppel, lack of consideration or improper settlement; lack of proved demand on the trustees for the Fibroin debt precludes summary judgment on that point; accordingly summary judgment was granted in part for the plaintiff for specified sums and refused in part as to the Fibroin claim against the trustees.