Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Jaimie Royston Fuller

[2013] NSWSC 42

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Commonwealth Bank of Australia -v- Jaimie Royston Fuller [2013] NSWSC 42
Hearing dates:	30 January 2013
Decision date:	30 January 2013
Jurisdiction:	Equity Division - Commercial List
Before:	Hammerschlag J
Decision:	Judgment against the third defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of $2,159,836.16
Catchwords:	Claim by bank for judgment on a guarantee. No issue of principle.
Legislation Cited:	Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999 (Cth)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Commonwealth Bank of Australia - Plaintiff John Giles Bourke - First Defendant Geoffrey Peter Newling - Second Defendant Jaimie Royston Fuller - Third Defendant
Representation:	Counsel: A.E. Maroya - Plaintiff Solicitors: Ashurst - Australia - Plaintiff
File Number(s):	2011/219114

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. Under a Letter of Offer incorporating the terms and conditions of loan, dated 18 July 2005, the Bank of Western Australia Limited (now the Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("the Bank"), pursuant to a Certificate of Transfer dated 7 September 2012 under the Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999 (Cth)) lent and advanced monies to Master Property Holdings Pty Limited ACN 100 800 351.

1. The initial advance was for $3,540,000. The Letter of Offer was varied by written variations dated respectively 19 August 2006, 3 November 2006, 18 June 2007, 11 September 2007 and 22 January 2009, all of which were assented to on or about the dates they bear by the third defendant.

1. The third defendant, Mr Jaimie Royston Fuller, guaranteed the obligations to the Bank of Master Property Holdings Pty Limited under a written guarantee dated 21 July 2005. The Bank claims, by its Summons and Commercial List Statement, $2,159,836.16 plus interest and costs.

1. An affidavit of a bank officer, Mr Charles James Fletcher Perry, sworn 29 January 2013, establishes that the third defendant is indebted to the Bank in the sum of $2,199,850.64 and through which is tendered a certificate by the Bank under cl 7.12 of the guarantee certifying this amount.

1. The third defendant filed a Commercial List Response but, despite being called outside of Court, did not appear today.

1. The Bank is accordingly entitled to judgment for the amount prayed in its Summons (which is less than the amount owing as established by the Certificate).

1. I make orders in accordance with the document entitled Judgment which I have dated, initialled and placed with the papers.

1. The orders may be entered forthwith.

1. Useful written submissions were provided by counsel for the Bank which I will initial, date today's date and also place with the papers.

**********