Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: RING TREAD SYSTEMS (AUSTRALASIA) PTY LTD (RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED) v TUBB [1998] NSWCA 186 Decision date: 30 October 1998
See Attachment (PDF)
Details
- AGLC
- Ring Tread Systems (Australasia) Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Tubb [1998] NSWCA 186
- Case
- [1998] NSWCA 186
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Ring Tread Systems (Australasia) Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) v Tubb was a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal concerning a dispute over the enforceability of a guarantee. The appellant, Ring Tread Systems, sought to recover moneys owed under a guarantee provided by the respondent, Mr. Tubb, in favour of a company called Tyre & Wheel Centre Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the guarantee was validly executed and enforceable against Mr. Tubb.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the guarantee was a deed or a simple contract, and if it was a deed, whether it had been validly executed by Mr. Tubb in accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider the effect of the wording of the guarantee document and the circumstances surrounding its signing by Mr. Tubb.
The Court of Appeal found that the guarantee was intended to be a deed. Applying the principles of deed execution under the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW), the court held that the guarantee had not been validly executed as a deed because it had not been signed by Mr. Tubb in the presence of a witness. Consequently, the guarantee was not enforceable as a deed. The court further considered whether it could be construed as a simple contract, but found that there was no evidence of valuable consideration being provided to Mr. Tubb for the guarantee, which would be necessary for it to be a binding simple contract.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the guarantee was held to be unenforceable against Mr. Tubb.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the guarantee was a deed or a simple contract, and if it was a deed, whether it had been validly executed by Mr. Tubb in accordance with the requirements of the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider the effect of the wording of the guarantee document and the circumstances surrounding its signing by Mr. Tubb.
The Court of Appeal found that the guarantee was intended to be a deed. Applying the principles of deed execution under the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW), the court held that the guarantee had not been validly executed as a deed because it had not been signed by Mr. Tubb in the presence of a witness. Consequently, the guarantee was not enforceable as a deed. The court further considered whether it could be construed as a simple contract, but found that there was no evidence of valuable consideration being provided to Mr. Tubb for the guarantee, which would be necessary for it to be a binding simple contract.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the guarantee was held to be unenforceable against Mr. Tubb.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.