Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v CTC Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 252

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v CTC Group Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 252 Hearing dates: 25 June 2012 Decision date: 13 August 2012 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Meagher JA at [36]; Barrett JA at [37] Decision: (1) Appeal allowed. (2) Set aside orders 4 and 5 made at first instance on 9 September 2011. (3) If the parties are able to agree on the amount of the judgment that should be entered in favour of Perpetual, direct that they lodge with the Registrar within seven days of the date of this judgment an appropriate form of Consent Order. (4) If the parties are unable to so agree, direct that Perpetual lodge with the Court within 14 days of the date of this judgment written submissions as to the amount of the judgment that should be entered in its favour, that CTC lodge written submissions in reply within a further seven days and that Perpetual lodge any response within seven days thereafter. (5) Order CTC to pay Perpetual's costs of its claim against CTC incurred at first instance and on appeal. (6) CTC to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951, if qualified. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: CONTRACTS - breach - mortgage origination deed - originator obliged to take reasonable care to identify proposed borrower and confirm his or her authority to submit loan application - originator submitted loan application with forged signature and without the authority of the apparent applicant - whether originator used original passport photograph to identify applicant - likelihood of third party successfully impersonating applicant despite comparison with passport photograph - whether originator in breach of obligations under deed