ON 23 JUNE 1975, the English Court of Appeal delivered Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA
(“The Mareva”) [1980] 1 All ER 213.
http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs4/19801AER213.html
The court introduced the asset freezing Mareva injunction by ordering that the defendant be restrained from removing its assets from it’s jurisdiction pending trial.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 16 MAY 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19 (16 May 2014).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/19.html
The High Court dismissed an appeal from the NSW Court of Appeal, which had held that Mr Sidhu could not depart from assurances previously given to his former partner, Ms Van Dyke, that he would transfer certain real property to her.
The High Court was satisfied from the evidence given by Ms Van Dyke at the trial that she had acted to her detriment in reliance on Mr Sidhu’s representations and that she was entitled to equitable compensation to be assessed with reference to the value of the property in question.
.”
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
ON 7 MAY 2014, the High Court of Australia delivered Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited v Hills Industries Limited [2014] HCA 14 (7 May 2014).
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Limited (AFSL) had sought to recover monies had and received by the first and second respondents (Hills and Bosch) on the grounds that Hills and Bosch were paid under a mistake of fact arising from a fraud committed by a third party (Sharzynski) who controlled a group of companies (TCP) who traded with Hills and Bosch.
Sharzynski had led Hills and Bosch to expect that monies transferred from AFSL (TCP’s finance company) were for a reduction of debt owed to Hills and Bosch by TCP. On the faith of receiving the monies, Hills and Bosch continued to trade with TCP and chose not to pursue their remedies against TCP for the recovery of outstanding debts. However, the monies had been transferred from AFSL under a mistake of fact induced by a fraud committed by Sharzynski, who had falsified invoices from Hills and Bosch to represent that the monies in question were for AFSL to acquire equipment from Hills and Bosch to be leased back to TCP.
Hills and Bosch argued that on the faith of receiving the monies, they had suffered an irreversible detriment by choosing not to pursue their remedies against Sharzynski and TCP.
The NSW Court of Appeal held that Hills and Bosch were not required to repay the monies as they had established a complete defence that they had changed their position and suffered an irreversible detriment on the faith of the receipt of the payments.
The High Court unanimously rejected AFSL’s appeal of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The High Court held that the relevant inquiry is whether or not the retention of the monies would be inequitable in all of the circumstances and concluded that it would be inequitable if Hills and Bosch were required to repay AFSL. The High Court rejected the approach proposed by AFSL that it must take into account the extent to which Hills and Bosch had been “disenriched” as this principle, like the principle of unjust enrichment, is inconsistent with the Australian law of restitution.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/14.html
1300 00 2088
ON THIS DAY in 2014, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2014] FCA 35 (5 February 2014).
ON THIS DAY in 2014, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2014] FCA 35 (5 February 2014).
ON 13 OCTOBER 2009, the High Court of Australia delivered Bofinger v Kingsway Group Limited [2009] HCA 44 (13 October 2009).
The High Court held that guarantors of a secured loan may recoup contributions they made to the repayment of the loan to a first mortgagee from the remaining surplus securities before the surplus is applied to repay any second or subsequent mortgagee with security over the same property, even if the guarantors have also guaranteed the second or subsequent loans. The guarantors were found the be subrogated to the first mortgagee. Upon repayment of the first loan, first mortgagee had a fiduciary obligation to in good conscience provide the guarantors with the surplus funds and remaining properties.
On the principle of unjust enrichment and how it applies to subrogation, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Kiefel and Bell JJ said at [85]:
“The appeal to this Court in Friend v Brooker [63], which concerned the equitable doctrine of contribution, was correctly conducted on the footing that the concept of unjust enrichment was not a principle supplying a sufficient premise for direct application in a particular case. The same is true of the equitable doctrine of subrogation. The oral submissions for the Solicitors correctly recognised this.”
1300 00 2088
ON 28 OCTOBER 2008, Justice Owen of the Supreme Court of WA delivered The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) [2008] WASC 239 (28 October 2008).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/wa/WASC/2008/239.html
One of Australia’s longest cases.
1300 00 2088
ON 27 JULY 2007, the Federal Court of Australia delivered Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2007] FCA 1062 (27 July 2007).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/1062.html
The Seven Network Limited sued News Limited and others, including Foxtel Cable Television Pty Limited and PBL, alleging anti-competitive conduct including breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth).
Seven claimed that the respondents had used anti-competitive conduct to secure the rights to broadcast certain sporting events.
Justice Sackville dismissed the claims.
The judgment is notable for Sackville J’s comments about the case being one of “mega-litigation” heard over 120 sitting days involving: over 85,000 documents comprising over 500,000 pages; submissions of over 1,500 pages; pleadings of over 100,000 pages; and a transcript of over 9,500 pages.
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 