Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Westpac Banking Corporation v Jarrett
[2000] FCA 1675
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Endormer Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2000] FCA 1669 followed Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 followed
Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd (2000) 97 FCR 187 cited
WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION v GLENN ROBERT JARRETT and DEBORAH ALLISON JARRETT
NG 256 OF 1996
GYLES J
SYDNEY
21 NOVEMBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 256 OF 1996
BETWEEN: Westpac Banking Corporation
APPLICANT
AND: Glenn Robert Jarrett
AND: FIRST RESPONDENT
Deborah Allison Jarrett
SECOND RESPONDENT
Glenn Robert Jarrett
FIRST CROSS CLAIMANT
Deborah Allison Jarrett
SECOND CROSS CLAIMANT
Westpac Banking Corporation
CROSS DEFENDANT JUDGE: Gyles J
DATE OF ORDER: 21 November 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The proceedings be adjourned to a date to be fixed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 256 OF 1996
BETWEEN: Westpac Banking Corporation
APPLICANT
AND: Glenn Robert Jarrett
AND: FIRST RESPONDENT
Deborah Allison Jarrett
SECOND RESPONDENT
Glenn Robert Jarrett
FIRST CROSS CLAIMANT
Deborah Allison Jarrett
SECOND CROSS CLAIMANT
Westpac Banking Corporation
CROSS DEFENDANT
JUDGE: Gyles J
DATE: 21 November 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Westpac Banking Corporation ("Westpac") is the registered first mortgagee of the property known as 8 Bataan Place, Kings Park ("the Jarrett property"), owned by the first and second respondents and cross-claimants, Glenn Robert Jarrett and Deborah Allison Jarrett. Westpac claims that the Jarretts are in default in their obligation to repay monies due under the mortgage, and makes application for possession of the mortgaged property and for payment of the outstanding balance of monies due plus interest. It was made clear in final submissions that it is accepted that there is no defence, as such, to the claims for monies due. The Jarretts, however, cross-claim for relief of various kinds pursuant to the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the general law. The manner in which the cross-claim is pleaded involved some issues which are linked with issues arising in the related proceedings between Glenn Robert Jarrett and others and Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited and Peter James Hedge (No. NG 3244 of 1995) (Endormer Pty Ltd v Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd [2000] FCA 1669 - "the Endormer proceedings") so that the matters were heard, to an extent, together, and the decision in the Endormer proceedings will be delivered immediately prior to this decision. The same counsel represented the respondents here as represented the applicants in the Endormer proceedings. This judgment is framed upon the basis that the judgment in the Endormer proceedings is to be read with it. This relieves me of the necessity of setting out in this judgment the history of the commercial dealings between Australian Guarantee Corporation ("AGC"), on the one hand, and Endormer Pty Limited (In Liquidation) ("Endormer") and those associated with it, on the other hand, which constitute the mosaic of facts of which the particular mortgage transaction in issue here forms a part.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate