KING v ST GEORGE COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION LTD [1996] NSWCA 305

KING v ST GEORGE COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY P and PRIESTLEY JA 24 June 1996

[1996] NSWCA 305

Mahoney P. This application comes before the Court primarily as an application for leave to appeal. There is an accompanying application for a stay should leave be granted.

The circumstances are set forth in the documents before the Court and I shall summarise them so far as is necessary to explain what this Court is doing and why. The Court is informed that guarantees were given by, if I may so describe them, the King interests to the mortgagee company St George Commercial Credit Corporation Limited in relation to an indebtedness by another person or persons.

Ultimately proceedings were taken against the King interests for possession of the property that was given by way of security for the guarantee and also for the debt said to be due. It is said that the amount owing by reason of the guarantee now exceeds the value of the property in question.

The matter came before Hulme J earlier in the year. They were complicated and were before his Honour for a considerable time. His Honour mentioned in hisjudgment that the hearing proceeded before him for some two weeks at the beginning of the year. Ultimately he reserved his decision.

On 26 April 1996 his Honour made an order having the effect that the issue of whether the company should have possession of the guarantee security, their residential premises, be dealt with as a separate matter and he made an order that the company have possession of that security.

He then made observations in relation to other issues which were outstanding and were to be decided consequent upon the hearing of the matter before him. His Honour indicated that to give judgment in the matter, it being a matter of some complication, he would have to consider the detail of the evidence and he said that the judgment might not be given for some little time. His Honour, I think, took this into account in determining to make an order for possession as he did by his judgment of 26 April 1996.