11 Dec 2023
By consent, summary judgment is appropriate where parties agree the debt is owing; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the principal sum, contractual interest under s22 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 for the pre-judgment period, post-judgment interest at the prescribed rate under ss10 and 12, and costs on a 2B basis.
8 Nov 2023
The court entered judgment by consent under r 15.16 because the defendants jointly and severally admitted the plaintiff's claim on agreed terms; the judgment incorporates specified principal and interest calculations and is subject to the plaintiff's undertaking not to enforce unless the defendants default under the recorded settlement terms.
28 Aug 2023
The guarantee was an all‑obligations commercial guarantee and s 9C CCCFA did not apply because the lending was not consumer credit; Heartland had no continuing contractual or statutory duty to notify Burton of overdraft limit increases beyond relying on the borrower and its authorised director to agree variations; Burton, as director and informed guarantor, had means and responsibility to monitor company finances; plaintiff established there was no real defence and summary judgment was appropriate.
15 May 2023
Applying the Court-prescribed methodologies and the parties' joint memorandum, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for total damages of $3,268,201.14 composed of the specified cost items and the deduction for interest not earned.
23 Nov 2022
Where payments by appellants to purchase or develop property gave rise to a resulting trust, equity could impose a constructive trust to reflect the parties' reasonable expectations and to prevent unconscionable retention of legal title; accordingly Huxley Place and Ropata Avenue required constructive trust relief proportionate to appellants' contributions (with Ropata remitted for quantification), Bawden Road was governed by an express agreement (loan with partial interest) and IMCA is the default interest regime with s18 exceptions not engaged on the facts.
7 Dec 2021
The application for adjournment was dismissed because the amendments were not materially significant, the defendants could either place preliminary forensic conclusions before the Court or explain why further analysis was necessary, the standard for summary judgment requires only evidence of a triable issue rather than full quantum proof, and remote hearing procedures and electronic bundles rendered in‑person attendance unnecessary.
10 Sept 2021
The deed dated 10 May 2018 was held valid and binding; the plaintiff failed to prove personal liability for amounts advanced to the defendant's company; credible evidence (bank withdrawals, corroborating spouse evidence and contemporaneous email) established that the defendant made substantial cash repayments which reduced the principal; the 9% default interest clause was not an unenforceable penalty because it protected the lender's legitimate interest and was applied only to unpaid interest in practice; on that basis judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $386,690.89.
27 Aug 2021
Because the plaintiff proved service and neither defendant entered an appearance or filed a defence, the court was obliged to enter summary judgment by default awarding possession against the first defendant and a monetary judgment against the second defendant for the sums and contractual costs claimed.
10 Jun 2021
There was no credible or contemporaneous evidence of an agreed variation waiving default interest; contemporaneous emails and ledgers show Heartland consistently treated accounts as in arrears and charging default interest; clauses requiring written signed variations and certificates of amounts due supported Heartland's position; accordingly the defendants' variation, estoppel, Fair Trading Act and CCCFA defences were not reasonably arguable and summary judgment was appropriate for the recalculated loan balances with specified interest and costs directions.
22 Nov 2019
The Court was satisfied there was no reasonably arguable defence to Westpac's conventional claim based on amounts owing under the loan agreements and guarantee, and therefore entered summary judgment for the plaintiff for the calculated sum of $415,886.46 including interest and solicitor-and-client costs.