Damian Clothier KC and Andrew O’Brien appeared for the first respondent, instructed by Ashurst.
The judgment concerned an appeal by both the first and second appellants seeking to challenge the validity of a certificate of indebtedness issued by the first respondent, certifying the amount owed by the appellants.
The central issues considered were whether there was proof of the debt by a contractual certificate or at all, whether there was a duty owed by the mortgagee in selling the aircraft and whether the primary judged erred in their conclusion with respect to the requirement form and refusal of the appellant’s application for leave to amend their defence and counterclaim to encompass allegations sought to be pursued at trial.
The Court held that the certificate was validly issued by the first respondent as assignee, that there was a duty owed by the appellants, and that the primary judge had not erred in their refusal of leave to amend. However, there was no breach of duty.
The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as no ground of appeal was established and gave leave to parties to file and serve submissions as to costs.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
