Receivers

In the matter of Sundara [2015] NSWSC 1694

A lender appointed receivers to four borrowers and sold the secured properties. The sole director of each borrower claimed that the loans were farm debts and the lender contravened the Farm Debt Mediation Act by failing to give notice to permit mediation and hence its enforcement action and sale of the properties was void and …

In the matter of Sundara [2015] NSWSC 1694 Read More »

Park & Muller (liquidators of LM Investment Management) v. Whyte (receiver of the LM First Mortgage Investment Fund) [2015] QSC 283

The responsible entity of the LM First Mortgage Investment Fund went into liquidation and liquidators were appointed to manage the responsible entity to wind it up as well as the scheme itself under section 601NE(1) of the Corporations Act pursuant to court orders. A receiver was also appointed to ensure the scheme was wound up …

Park & Muller (liquidators of LM Investment Management) v. Whyte (receiver of the LM First Mortgage Investment Fund) [2015] QSC 283 Read More »

Westpac v Sayah [2015] NSWSC 1167

The guarantor’s company installed the energy upgrades under the NSW greenhouse gas reduction scheme and obtained funding from the bank secured on its assets and a guarantee from the company’s director. The company defaulted and receivers were appointed by the bank. The receivers sold the company’s assets and sued the guarantor. The guarantor claimed that …

Westpac v Sayah [2015] NSWSC 1167 Read More »

Stacks v Tolteca [2015] QSC 234

The borrower defaulted on its mortgage and proposed selling the secured property by auction to repay its loan. The lender requested full payment of its debt and legals before granting a discharge, in default of which it claimed possession and appointed receivers. The borrower challenged the lender’s claim for possession on the basis that it …

Stacks v Tolteca [2015] QSC 234 Read More »

Boz One v McLellan [2015] VSCA 68

Receivers were appointed to a slipway business by Investec Bank. The receivers sold a 50% shareholding in another company owned by the debtor to the debtors former partner for $1 and also asssigned to him debts of $671k for $500k. The debtor sued alleged breach of s 420A(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 which provides:  In exercising …

Boz One v McLellan [2015] VSCA 68 Read More »

Australian Executor Trustees v Provident Capital [2012] FCA 728

Provident Capital a well known mortgage lender raised its money through a debenture fund. On 29 June 2012, a receiver was appointed by the Federal Court. This appointment was made even though Provident had not defaulted on its debentures. The application to the court was made by the trustee of the debenture trust deed, Australian …

Australian Executor Trustees v Provident Capital [2012] FCA 728 Read More »

Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Abdul [2012] VSC 222

The guarantor wife was a director and shareholder of the borrower company. Nevertheless, the guarantee was set aside under the “Wife’s equity principle.” It is unconscionable to enforce a guarantee against a wife who does not understand its effect and receives no benefit from the transaction if the lender took no steps to explain the …

Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Abdul [2012] VSC 222 Read More »

Olde v Metro Surf Australia [2012] NSWSC 618

The receiver brought possession proceedings against an occupier. The occupier argued that as the receivers were agents of the mortgagor then whatever rights the occupier had with the mortgagor bound the receivers. The judge agreed that that position was correct and cited Magar v Arab Bank Australia Limited [2010] NSWSC 553. However, the difference between …

Olde v Metro Surf Australia [2012] NSWSC 618 Read More »

CBA v Oswal [2012] WASC 128

CBA loaned Garuda money to purchase an aircraft. CBA took a chattel mortgage over the airplane. Garurda defaulted and CBA appointed a receiver which seized the airplane and sold it. There was a shortfall and CBA sued the guarantor. The guarantor accepted there had been default but argued: CBA appointed receivers for an improper purpose–to …

CBA v Oswal [2012] WASC 128 Read More »

Scroll to Top