{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Grgic v anz banking group 1 son and daughter in law

Info iconThis preview shows pages 28–30. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
GRGIC V ANZ BANKING GROUP 1. Son and daughter-in-law took along an imposter with them who was pretending to be G Snr. The bank dude signed it (which required he witnessed it AND knew the person signing it), and bank manager ok’d it. 2. G Snr was RP of land used to secure mortgage loans. G Jnr had possession of his DCT. G Jnr and wife took an imposter to the Bank and introduced him as G Snr. Bank officer witnessed imposter’s signature on mortgage, and bank manager certified the mortgage was in order. G Snr challenged the mortgage after it was reg’d 3. Why did he fail to make out fraud exception against the bank? Had to show bank officer lacked belief that it was Mr. Grgic, OR that they were reckless to this. 28
Background image of page 28

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
29 Didn’t have to know them well, as the signing thing didn’t give a timeline for how long you needed to know someone before you knew them. 4. DISTINGUISHED: AGC, where the bank knew of the dodgy actions. In Grgic, they were asking in good faith. RUSSO V BENDIGO BLDG SOC 1. The Bendigo Bank got security for the mortgage, without Mrs. Russo’s consent. The daughter and son-in-law defaulted on payment. Bank sought to be paid, Mrs. Russo found out about the other stuff here. Mrs Russo’s son in law forged her signature on a mortgage. Ms Gerada, a law clerk employed by Reichman, solicitor for the bank, falsely attested the signature. Reichman lodged it for reg’n, unaware of the false attestation. When Bank sued for possession, Mrs Russo argued the mortgage was defeasible for fraud 2. Vic CA held that G’s conduct was not statutory fraud. Basically, the court held that the solicitor who took the title to be registered didn’t know of the fraud, so can’t be fraudulent. This is the case even though another solicitor (an employee of the first solicitor) knew of the fraud leading up to this, but because she wasn’t being dishonest in her own mind, and that she didn’t mean to affect Mrs. Russo, so she didn’t act fraudulently in the TS sense. Mrs. Russ had to prove affirmative evidence that the solicitors clerk had understood what she was doing and the consequences of it. NIGH ON IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!! 3. Fraud requires ‘dishonesty or want of probity, a “willful and conscious seeking to defeat or disregard another’s rights” (or at least recklessness as regards affecting such rights – per Batt JA) 4. G’s false attestation did not amount to fraud, without evidence that she understood the consequences for the registration process. 5. AGAIN, distinguished from AGC, as in that case the person was aware of fraudulent activity also took it to registration place. FRAUD AND DISHONESTY 1. Assets Co – fraud means actual fraud, dishonesty 2. Test for fraud is subjective (inquiry into the wrongdoer’s motives, knowledge and intent) 3. In Russo , fraud said to mean ‘dishonesty or want of probity, a “willful and conscious seeking to defeat or disregard another’s rights” [or reckless indifference thereto – per Batt JA]
Background image of page 29
Image of page 30
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page28 / 47

GRGIC V ANZ BANKING GROUP 1 Son and daughter in law took...

This preview shows document pages 28 - 30. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online