GE Custodians v Bruce Leonard Bartle and Dorothy Judith Bartle and others - SC 52/2010
Media releases
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the credit contracts entered into by the appellant and the respondents were oppressive in terms of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003; Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “oppression”; whether it is possible for a contract to be oppressive despite independent legal advice being received: whether knowledge of a third party could be attributed to the appellant in the absence of a relationship of agency.[2010] NZCA 174 CA 627/2009 6 May 2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the credit contracts were oppressive in terms of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.
5 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of issues reserved by that Court for further consideration. The appellant is awarded costs in this Court against the first and second respondents of $25,000 together with its reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.
3 December 2010
5 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of issues reserved by that Court for further consideration. The appellant is awarded costs in this Court against the first and second respondents of $25,000 together with its reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.
3 December 2010
Hearing Transcripts
Related Documents
Leave judgment - leave granted — GE CUSTODIANS v BARTLE AND ORS SC 52/2010 [5 August 2010] (PDF 49 KB)
Substantive judgment — GE CUSTODIANS v BARTLE AND BARTLE AND ANOR SC 52/2010 [3 December 2010] (PDF 200 KB)