Jackson Lalic provides a complete commercial and personal litigation service.  Peter Jackson and David Lalic have conducted cases in the areas of banking and finance, intellectual property protection, tax, lease disputes, family law and employment law.  For members of the rural community, Jackson Lalic has conducted litigation in relation to property rights, water rights and the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

At Jackson Lalic we provide competent, efficient and cost effective service to clients with an emphasis on meeting the needs of the client by talking to them about their aims and aspirations and reporting developments to them on a regular basis.

For banks, finance companies and private lenders, Jackson Lalic provides a debt recovery service concentrating on rapid response to requests to deal with problem loans.

For borrower clients, Jackson Lalic use their experience to find the best defences available.

Jackson Lalic strive to find a compromise in all litigation.

Following are some of the prominent cases that have been conducted by Peter Jackson and David Lalic.

Hodgson Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation
In this case a farmer was in the midst of a prolonged and difficult mediation that had already gone for approximately three days over a period of some months and was still not concluded.  Westpac required the borrower to execute a lien over a crop that was in the ground.  It was argued for the farmer that this was an enforcement procedure and could not be required of the farmer before the conclusion of the mediation.  The Court held that requiring the farmer to execute a crop lien was not an enforcement procedure but an administrative procedure and the farmer was ordered to execute the crop lien even though the mediation had not concluded.

Gain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
In this case the Court was asked to examine when a mediation occurs under the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

Yarrangah Pty Limited v National Australia Bank Limited
Comments by Justice Young in this Supreme Court decision have given borrowers the hope that there may be a ‘Court of last resort’ when it comes to a decision as to who should sell their property.  This was a case where it was argued for the farmer that a larger percentage of the equity in the property would be preserved for them if they were permitted to sell the property.  The case settled before judgment was delivered.

Robert Luka & Ors v Strata Sphere Pty Ltd
A client company sought to bankrupt three parties against whom judgment had been entered following failure to meet a payment date in a settlement agreement.  The debtors attempted to set aside the Bankruptcy Notices on the basis that a stay was in place and that only not notice should have been served.  The Court decided that there was no stay and that it was prudent to issue three Bankruptcy Notices (one for each of the debtors) rather than one single notice.

Peter Jackson and David Lalic have conducted a number of significant Court cases in the area of banking and finance.  Some of these are as follows:

Dennis Hadfield v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Justice Bella of the District Court examined a breach of good faith by the Commonwealth Bank on the sale of the property of Mr Hadfield in early 1994.  Justice Bella found in favour of Mr Hadfield but the Judge’s decision was overturned in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

Giorgi v European Asian Bank
This is an important decision on the issue of a bank’s accessorial liability.  The case involved a relationship between a mother and a daughter and the mother’s relationship with the European Asian Bank.  The Court held that the bank was knowingly involved in the mother’s breach of trust and that the mortgage should be set aside.  The case also dealt with the meaning of independent advice.  In the case of Georgi, the mother organised the legal advice for the daughter with her own solicitor.  That was held not to be independent legal advice.

Layoun v State Bank of New South Wales
This decision is important in the area of the emotional dependence of some family members on another family member and the extent to which that dependence can be used to set aside a mortgage and loan transaction.  Judge Levine found that in a Syrian family the cultural norm was for family members to be dependent on the oldest son and in circumstances where the bank did not ensure that the affected family members did not understand the mortgage transaction, the mortgage was set aside.

PA Wright & Sons Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd
The claim PA Wright & Sons Pty Ltd (‘PAWS’) made against the bank was based on promises made by the bank that it would fund an expansion and vertical integration program by PAWS, and would allow PAWS a moratorium on the repayment of principal during the period of extension.  Those promises were inconsistent with the contractual arrangements between PAWS and the bank.  The Court held that PAWS did not rely on any promises that had been made by the bank and in those circumstances could not be successful in setting aside the mortgages.