NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Donnelly [2013] NSWSC 1760 Hearing dates: 11, 12, 13 & 15 November 2013; written submissions 22 November 2013 Decision date: 29 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Stevenson J Decision: Bank entitled to judgment for debt and possession of property Catchwords: BANKING AND FINANCE - banker and customer - dual currency loan facility - whether Bank unlawfully converted facility currency
REAL PROPERTY - claim for possession - default judgment for possession already entered against one joint tenant
EQUITY - whether loan facility invalid due to unconscionable conduct - documents signed at "urging and direction" - risks inherent not adequately explained - lack of independent financial or legal advice - misrepresentations
EQUITY - whether Bank estopped from relying on facility currency conversion Legislation Cited: Contracts Review Act 1980 Conveyancing Act 1919 Cases Cited: Attorney General of New South Wales v World Best Holdings Ltd [2005] NSWCA 261; (2005) 63 NSWLR 557 Bateman v Hunt [1904] 2 KB 530 Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 147 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25; (2013) 298 ALR 35 Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi [2003] HCA 57; (2003) 217 CLR 315 United States Surgical Corp v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 766 Van Den Heuvel v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2010] NSWCA 171; (2010) 15 BPR 28,647s Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Wright v Gibbons (1949) 78 CLR 313 Texts Cited: M Davies, A S Bell and P L G Brereton, Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia, 9th ed (2014) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (first plaintiff) ANZ Asia Limited (second plaintiff) Jason Luke Donnelly (first defendant) Fiona Marie-Therese Donnelly (second defendant) Representation: Counsel: A J McInerney SC with O R Jones (first and second plaintiffs) K J Ryan (second defendant) Solicitors: Gadens Lawyers (first and second plaintiffs) File Number(s): SC 2011/305340 Publication restriction: Nil
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