Daily Banking: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 View in browser
For optimised viewing please add "benchmark@benchmarkinc.com.au" to your safe senders list.

A daily Bulletin listing our choice of Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia.

Daily Banking

Executive Summary (One Minute Read)
ShoreForm (Qld) Pty Ltd v Millennium Coal Pty Ltd (No 4) (FCA) - trade practices - contract - estoppel - misleading or deceptive conduct - claims by formwork services provider against companies - application dismissed
Ling v Pan Pac Investment Pty Limited; Ling v Wu (NSWSC) - contract - fraud - possession - unconscionable conduct - interest payable on loans - judgment for lender in amount to be determined
Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)
ShoreForm Pty Ltd v Millennium Coal Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 605
Federal Court of Australia
Robertson J
Trade practices - applicant claimed declarations it entered into one or more contracts with either or both respondents for provision of formwork services - alternatively applicant claimed either or both respondents were estopped from denying existence of one or more binding contracts for provision of the formwork services - alternatively applicant claimed to recover payment for services provided on restitutionary basis - applicant also made further claim of misleading or deceptive conduct under s52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or unconscionable conduct under s 51AC - monetary claim sought damages for breach of contract by respondents - alternatively applicant claimed payment by respondents on quantum meruit basis - in further alternative applicant sought damages or compensation under s87 for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct - ss69 & 131 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - s56 Property Law Act 1974 - held: applicant’s claims failed - application dismissed.
Ling v Pan Pac Investment Pty Limited; Ling v Wu [2015] NSWSC 850
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Button J
Contract - fraud - possession - plaintiff lender sought orders against second defendant borrower arising from alleged mortgage default - first defendant company was associated with second defendant and was registered proprietor of property - borrower claimed plaintiff knew or ought to have known that borrower was seeking to borrow funds in aid of fraudulent enterprise - by end of hearing borrower did not resist repayment of loans - refined point of contention whether borrower liable to pay interest on  loans - unconscionability - whether any application of Contracts Review Act 1980 - whether interest should be disallowed on basis it was unlawful penalty - held: plaintiff behaved unconscionably against borrower with regard to interest rates with respect second to fifth loans but not first loan - interest rate on default of first loan did not offend law against penalties - on second, third, fourth and fifth loans lender entitled to rate of interest of 20% from date default - even if Court wrong about principles of unconscionability reliance on Act not permitted because of  prohibition contained in s6 - judgment for plaintiff in sum to be determined.