Australian Guarantee Corporation (NZ) Ltd v McBeth
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 15 April 1992
Areas of law
Judgment analysis
AI-generated summary
It can misstate holdings, facts, or citations. Always confirm against the judgment PDF.
Facts
The appellant provided finance for the operations of Coastal Rentals Limited, with the respondents acting as guarantors. When the company defaulted, the appellant commenced summary judgment proceedings for the balance owing after accounting for recoveries from the sale of assets and other payments. The High Court Master granted summary judgment on liability but dismissed the application as to quantum, finding that there were disputes of fact regarding the sale of assets. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that it should be entitled to judgment for a part of the claim which was indisputably due, even if other parts were in dispute.
Held
- Under Rules 136 and 137 of the High Court Rules, the Court has the power to grant summary judgment for a part of a monetary claim that is indisputably due, even if other parts of the claim arising from the same cause of action remain in dispute.
- The focus of the inquiry under RR 136 and 137 is on whether there is a defence to a 'claim or particular part of such claim', not on whether the undisputed part constitutes a separate cause of action.
Orders
The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the High Court for entry of judgment for the appellant in the sum of $186,998.56, together with interest at 20% per annum from 23 January 1991 to the date of judgment. The appellant is entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal fixed at $3,500.
Key passages4
A defendant must provide some evidential foundation for the defences which are raised in a summary judgment application. If not, the plaintiff's verification stands unchallenged and ought to be accepted unless it is patently wrong.
“Although the onus is upon the plaintiff there is upon the defendant a need to provide some evidential foundation for the defences which are raised. If not, the plaintiff's verification stands unchallenged and ought to be accepted unless it is patently wrong.”
High Court Rules 136 and 137, which refer to a 'claim' or 'particular part of such claim', should not be interpreted as being constrained by the concept of a single 'cause of action'.
“We think this is to place too much emphasis on the cause of action and not on the claim or particular part of such claim which are the very words of RR 136 and 137.”
Judgment can be given for an amount which is indisputably due and owing even if it is only part of the claim and not the whole of the relief sought under a particular cause of action.
“We see no reason to prevent judgment being given for an amount which is indisputably due and owing but which is only part of the claim and therefore not the whole of the relief sought under the particular cause of action.”
The test for when an amount is indisputably due is where it 'has already been ascertained or is capable of being ascertained by mere calculation without further investigation, or is admittedly due'.
“... where the amount ordered to be paid has already been ascertained or is capable of being ascertained by mere calculation without further investigation, or is admittedly due.”
Cases mentioned in judgment
Legislation mentioned
- Credit Contracts Act 1981
- High Court Rules, RR 136 (1), r 137