A husband’s company borrowed $11.675m to fund a property development. The wife granted a mortgage over her house and guaranteed the facility. Other guarantees and charges were provided by other members of the family. The loan went into default and the bank sought possession of the wife’s house. The wife sought to have the loan …
Bank of Western Australia v Ellis J Enterprises [2012] NSWSC 313 Read More »
This was a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal delivered by Young JA. It involved a Sri Lankan woman who claimed, through the medium of her husband, relief on the grounds of the undue influence of her husband under the Yerkey v Jones principle and Contracts Review Act. In relation to the husband’s involvement …
This case involved a forged mortgage. The owner of the mortgaged property discovered that his defacto son-in-law had mortgaged his house to secure several hire-purchase agreements. The hire-purchase agreements were for trucks and trailers for the defacto-son-in-law’s prime mover business. Claim by the lender for possession of the land The million dollar question was whether …
Australian Regional Credit v Mula [2009] NSWSC 325 Read More »
In this case the bank officer who witnessed the documents did not give evidence claiming “she was too busy”. The Court noted that bank could have subpoenaed her but did not and consequently drew a negative inference. The court determined that the borrower believed she was borrowing $400,000 not the actual amount of $680,000. The …
In this case the court determined that the Borrower in position analogous to that of surety because the loan advance was not going to him but to a third party. The court determined the contract was unjust because the terms were not explained and the borrower did not understand nature of obligations assumed. Thus the …
In this case the borrower raised a defence under the Contracts Review Act and alternatively under the principle in Yerkey v Jones (Undue influence). The principle in Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649 applies where two circumstances exist firstly where there is undue influence by a husband over a wife and second where there …
The plaintiff provided some vendor finance at 20% to the defendants, Geoffrey Maharaj and Seini Maharaj on their purchase of his property. The amount of the loan is in dispute. Additionally, Mr and Mrs Maharaj claimed that the agreement in relation to interest was unjust in terms of the Contracts Review Act 1980 or the …
In 1993, a couple borrowed money from the bank to assist in the purchase of a motor vehicle in the name of the husband. The loan was secured by a mortgage over the wife’s property. The mortgage was an “all monies” mortgage, which secured all monies that were then or which would thereafter become owing …
