Garcia v National Australia Bank
Encyclopedia
Garcia v National Australia Bank was an important case decided in the High Court of Australia
on 6 August 1998. The case determined the circumstances under which it is unconscionable for a lender to enforce a transaction against a wife. It is considered a very important case in Australian Equity (law), as it continues to be the leading case in spouse-surety cases.
. Between 1979 and 1987, Jean Balharry Garcia also signed several guarantees. These documents were signed to secure a loan that was made to Fabio Garcia for use in his company, Citizens Gold Bullion Exchange Pty Limited. The couple separated in 1988, and in the following year, Fabio Garcia's company wound up.
In 1990, Jean Balharry Garcia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
seeking declarations that the various documents were of no force or effect, and void. The trial judge applied the rule in Yerkey v Jones and granted a declaration that none of the guarantees which the appellant had given bound her.
On appeal, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the rule in Yerkey v Jones should no longer be applied as it had been overruled by Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio.
The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
The High Court also held that the law of unconscionability as established in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio did not cover the rule in Yerkey v Jones, and instead, both of these cases were considered as distinct doctrines.
High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...
on 6 August 1998. The case determined the circumstances under which it is unconscionable for a lender to enforce a transaction against a wife. It is considered a very important case in Australian Equity (law), as it continues to be the leading case in spouse-surety cases.
Facts
In 1979, Jean Balharry Garcia and her then husband, Fabio Garcia, executed a mortgage over their jointly owned matrimonial home in favour of National Australia BankNational Australia Bank
National Australia Bank is one of the four largest financial institutions in Australia in terms of market capitalisation and customers. NAB is ranked 17th largest bank in the world measured by market capitalisation...
. Between 1979 and 1987, Jean Balharry Garcia also signed several guarantees. These documents were signed to secure a loan that was made to Fabio Garcia for use in his company, Citizens Gold Bullion Exchange Pty Limited. The couple separated in 1988, and in the following year, Fabio Garcia's company wound up.
In 1990, Jean Balharry Garcia commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Supreme Court of New South Wales
The Supreme Court of New South Wales is the highest state court of the Australian State of New South Wales...
seeking declarations that the various documents were of no force or effect, and void. The trial judge applied the rule in Yerkey v Jones and granted a declaration that none of the guarantees which the appellant had given bound her.
On appeal, the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the rule in Yerkey v Jones should no longer be applied as it had been overruled by Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio.
The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Judgment
By a majority of five to one, the High Court declined to adopt the approach taken by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Barclays Bank Plc v O'Brien, and instead, held that the rule in Yerkey v Jones still applied in Australia. Justice Kirby in his dissenting judgement argued that the approach taken in Yerkey v Jones should be rejected. However, the High Court was unanimous in overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of reinstating the trial judge's orders.The High Court also held that the law of unconscionability as established in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio did not cover the rule in Yerkey v Jones, and instead, both of these cases were considered as distinct doctrines.