Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Borrower could not establish claim that loans were ‘limited recourse’
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms order of summary judgment against borrowers, on the grounds that the borrowers had failed to establish any bona fide defence to the effect that there was an assurance or collateral agreement under which the lender had agreed that the loans were 'limited recourse', and that there was no evidence that the loans had been transferred to another legal entity.
Peart J (nem diss): Summary judgment - appeal from two orders of High Court - whether bona fide defences raised to claims - whether loans were limited recourse - allegation that discussions and assurances had been given by bank - parol evidence - alleged collateral or side agreement - transfer of securities - alleged transfer of loan to another legal entity.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
