A property developer who financed his new Porsche through a related company has argued in his bid to stop ANZ bank recovering the vehicle, that it had received at least enough surplus funds from a successful mortgagee land sale to make up any deficit on the sports car.

Porsche payments dueShane Mundey entered into the 60 month finance arrangement in April 2010 but ceased payments in October 2012.

ANZ finally made formal demand for re-possession in September 2013 after company HBU Properties P/L had entered receivership when the debt under the vehicle lease was at $190k.

When the Porsche was not surrendered, the bank filed an application to compel its delivery to them.

HBU and Mundey defended the action on the basis that associate company Moreton Bay Developments (5) P/L, had generated a profit of more than $1 million in the sale of an Eight Mile Plains site of which the bank had been the beneficiary.

But according to the District Court at Brisbane, the assertion that the funds received by ANZ were more than sufficient to cover the vehicle debt was mere speculation. In any event, any surplus was the property of the other company, not HBU.

ANZ’s win was upheld on appeal with Justice Deborah Mullins agreeing Mundey’s contention was not supported by evidence and it was irrelevant the bank refused to disclose all relevant documents even though they would have presumably revealed the correct state of the ledger.

The orders made in August 2014 allowing re-possession of the Porsche were confirmed – more than 5 years after the start of the lease.

Mundey was ordered to pay the bank’s cost of the application on an indemnity basis.

HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 095 Holmes and Philippides JJA and Mullins J 29/05/2015


0 Comments

Do you have any questions?

If you have a question, seeking more information or would just like to speak to someone, make an enquiry now and we’ll be in touch with you.