One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on December 27, 2011, 02:38:36 AM
-
Loan row sparks ASIC call
Ben Butler
The Age
December 27, 2011
A SUPREME Court judge has asked the corporate watchdog to investigate a company run by Richmond football club director John Matthies over its pursuit of an illiterate woman for a $23,000 application fee for a loan that was never actually taken out.
Justice Clyde Croft said Mary Knowles did not have to pay the fee, claimed by Mr Matthies' finance company, Victorian Mortgage Investments (VMIL).
''The fact that a borrower is illiterate should, obviously, be a matter of concern to a lender and a fact that one would hope and expect good lending practices to identify,'' Justice Croft said in a judgment handed down last week. ''The approach of the defendant [VMIL] was, however, to cast responsibility on the finance brokers and her solicitor and to take procedural points in the proceedings and to attack the plaintiff's credit.
''None of this reflects well on the defendant.''
Justice Croft said he would send the evidence in the case to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which took over as credit regulator on July 1, ''with a recommendation that they review them with a view to taking such further action as thought appropriate''.
In addition to being VMIL's managing director, Mr Matthies, who gave evidence in the hearing, is a lawyer and nursing home developer. He has been a Richmond director since 2004, when he ousted Tigers premiership player Tony Jewell, and was re-elected to the struggling club's board in December last year.
Ms Knowles had owned the property at the centre of the dispute, a large block of land on Duncans Road, Werribee South, that hosts her family home, two factories, a market garden and a cool-store, since 2004.
In 2010, she asked VMIL about taking out a $1 million loan to pay off debts and legal costs run up in a County Court battle with another creditor.
She did not take out the loan, but VMIL slapped a caveat over the property and demanded $31,000, made up of the application fee, legal costs and interest.
Lawyers for Ms Knowles argued that the loan was covered by the national consumer credit code, which provides more protection than normal commercial law, because part of the property was used as a home.
They also argued that Ms Knowles was not given enough warning that when she agreed the loan was for commercial purposes she would lose the extra protections offered by the credit code.
Justice Croft agreed, saying part of the loan was to be used to pay off the mortgage on the family home and the words of the agreement contained ''nothing remotely resembling'' the warning required by the credit code.
He said VMIL pursued the debt with ''dogged determination'' despite failing to properly warn Ms Knowles or show the court evidence the fee was reasonable.
He ordered the entire loan agreement set aside, saying it was ''unjust'' because VMIL took no measures to make sure Ms Knowles understood it.
Land title records show Ms Knowles sold the property in August.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/loan-row-sparks-asic-call-20111226-1pag1.html#ixzz1hehdeGAU
-
Sounds like a cracker of a bloke! :wallywink
-
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
I have been extremely vocal about the ''nit wits"' who run the RFC,
This article says alot.
Matthies poo bloke it seems
-
agrree it doesnt read too flash for Matthies.
you do have to wonder about someone who was "taking out a $1 million loan to pay off debts and legal costs run up in a County Court battle with another creditor." though.
-
Agree Al. Very complex situation for an "illiterate" person to have found themselves in, in the first place I would have thought.
-
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
I have been extremely vocal about the ''nit wits"' who run the RFC,
This article says alot.
Matthies poo bloke it seems
couldnot have said it better myself.
-
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
I have been extremely vocal about the ''nit wits"' who run the RFC,
This article says alot.
Matthies poo bloke it seems
couldnot have said it better myself.
surprise surprise
-
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
I have been extremely vocal about the ''nit wits"' who run the RFC,
This article says alot.
Matthies poo bloke it seems
couldnot have said it better myself.
surprise surprise
whats the big surprise ;D
-
Id say TT was expecting this dude to get sued. It couldnt possibly be about you and jackster circling like vultures on a negative tiger story ;D
-
matthies
has yellow and black blood going through his veins,
has given the club millions over the years in $$$$ and in services
one of the few we have that has serious $$$$ and actually puts it in the club.
-
matthies
has yellow and black blood going through his veins,
has given the club millions over the years in $$$$ and in services
one of the few we have that has serious $$$$ and actually puts it in the club.
ty blaise, I sensed there were some serious hidden agendas emerging in this thread and I dont like it one little bit :shh
-
matthies
has yellow and black blood going through his veins,
has given the club millions over the years in $$$$ and in services
one of the few we have that has serious $$$$ and actually puts it in the club.
No wonder he has plenty to spare if this is typical of the way he does business. :shh
-
How funny.judging people on how much money they put in.look at Richard Pratt and his girlfriends.I reckon there are a few posters on here who are dead set mental cases..the article in today's paper says it all.he is a disgrace
-
while i wont make a judgment on someone based on one small newspaper article, i do agree with you that you dont judge people by how much money they put in.
-
Hey Blaisee.what sort of a twit are you?? Judging people by what $$$ they spend .now that's as shallow as it gets..what about all the volantees who gave there heart and soul to the place..your just a twit
-
Who gives a rats where the money comes from!
-
Hey Blaisee.what sort of a twit are you?? Judging people by what $$$ they spend .now that's as shallow as it gets..what about all the volantees who gave there heart and soul to the place..your just a twit
cut it out Jack, not sure his response deserves a crucifiction, teeth in and brain into gear next time partner and be nice it's christmas :lol
-
Sorry ....is a tiny bit strong.imbecile is much more suitable
-
Sorry twit is a tiny bit strong.imbecile is much more suitable
You're definately an expert on the word imbecile.... :thumbsup
GO TIGES!!!
-
Snip - topic people without the name calling and personal insults. :banghead :banghead
Disagree debate the topic with out the crap
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
Matthies poo bloke it seems
Do you know him personally? IF you don't then how would you know if he is an "ordinary bloke"
While I agree the article doesn't do him any favours but unless you know him personally I don't think you can label him an "ordinary bloke" just like I can say he is agreat bloke because I don't know him
Agree Al. Very complex situation for an "illiterate" person to have found themselves in, in the first place I would have thought.
Have to agree smokey
-
I find it remarkable that due to the plaintiff being an illiterate, everyone jumps to the simple conclusion , what a nasty conniving shylock JM must be...well Ive come across some illiterates in my time, they were also, uncouth, fould mouthed swines that I wouldnt trust as far as I could kick them, so my advice would be to stop short of sending a possee to lynch the bloke and find out a little more about the situation...hope that helps :shh
-
dont be drama queen bo and read what people have actually said.
-
dont be drama queen bo and read what people have actually said.
how about you review posts 2-10 and let us know how you arrived at the conclusion he was an ordinary bloke et al....wait I'll just get some popcorn and buckle myself in, cant wait to hear this :lol
-
where did i say he was an ordinary bloke? did i say that? :nope.
In fact how about you go back and read my first post in the thread, or any of my posts actually, and tell me how you came to the conclusion i was bagging Matthies in any way at all?
did anyone who made mention of the woman involved actually make a judgment on Matthies :nope
as i said, dont be a drama queen and read what people are actually writing.
hope you are enjoying you popcorn and long wait, and not missing anything important.
-
I find it remarkable that due to the plaintiff being an illiterate, everyone jumps to the simple conclusion , what a nasty conniving shylock JM must be...well Ive come across some illiterates in my time, they were also, uncouth, fould mouthed swines that I wouldnt trust as far as I could kick them, so my advice would be to stop short of sending a possee to lynch the bloke and find out a little more about the situation...hope that helps :shh
I find it remarkable that you would stereotype someone as being a "foul mouthed and uncouth" because they cannot read?
I know a few hard working people who were illiterate because they were immigrants to this country and worked their R's off doing jobs you wouldnt do to make their way in this country. Learning to read might not be a priority when you need to support a family partner.
I know of others who were undiagnosed with dyslexia and therefore had to put up with ignorant nobs like you because they didn't know what they didn't know.
The most sensible thing you have posted is the need to hear more before jumping to conclusions partner.
On the one hand, you're prepared to hang and quarter someone who is basically defending her rights not to be exploited and yet you then say we need to find out more about the situation.
-
I find it remarkable that due to the plaintiff being an illiterate, everyone jumps to the simple conclusion , what a nasty conniving shylock JM must be...well Ive come across some illiterates in my time, they were also, uncouth, fould mouthed swines that I wouldnt trust as far as I could kick them, so my advice would be to stop short of sending a possee to lynch the bloke and find out a little more about the situation...hope that helps :shh
I find it remarkable that you would stereotype someone as being a "foul mouthed and uncouth" because they cannot read?
I know a few hard working people who were illiterate because they were immigrants to this country and worked their R's off doing jobs you wouldnt do to make their way in this country. Learning to read might not be a priority when you need to support a family partner.
I know of others who were undiagnosed with dyslexia and therefore had to put up with ignorant nobs like you because they didn't know what they didn't know.
The most sensible thing you have posted is the need to hear more before jumping to conclusions partner.
On the one hand, you're prepared to hang and quarter someone who is basically defending her rights not to be exploited and yet you then say we need to find out more about the situation.
I was actually arguing against the stereotype ya dill, not every illiterate is poor and intellectually disabled , i balanced the case with my expereince, hope that helps :shh
-
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
Matthies poo bloke it seems
Do you know him personally? IF you don't then how would you know if he is an "ordinary bloke"
While I agree the article doesn't do him any favours but unless you know him personally I don't think you can label him an "ordinary bloke" just like I can say he is agreat bloke because I don't know him
I would have to follow the lead of a Supreme Court Judge who has heard all the evidence in this case, including from Matthies himself, in agreeing that Matthies is an "ordinary bloke and a disgrace". That's why the Supreme Court Justice has referred the matter to the corporate watchdog.
So here's one for balance - Jackstar is relying on a Supreme Court Justice for his opinion. On what evidence is Blaisee basing his statement of fact that Matthies has "given millions to the club".
-
ordinary bloke, actually a disgrace
Matthies poo bloke it seems
Do you know him personally? IF you don't then how would you know if he is an "ordinary bloke"
While I agree the article doesn't do him any favours but unless you know him personally I don't think you can label him an "ordinary bloke" just like I can say he is agreat bloke because I don't know him
I would have to follow the lead of a Supreme Court Judge who has heard all the evidence in this case, including from Matthies himself, in agreeing that Matthies is an "ordinary bloke and a disgrace". That's why the Supreme Court Justice has referred the matter to the corporate watchdog.
So here's one for balance - Jackstar is relying on a Supreme Court Justice for his opinion. On what evidence is Blaisee basing his statement of fact that Matthies has "given millions to the club".
has their been a decision yet or are you jumping the gun ::)
-
I find it remarkable that people are making comments on circumstances they know nothing about :wallywink
-
I find it remarkable that people are making comments on circumstances they know nothing about :wallywink
Wouldn't be OER if we did it any other way Dooks! ;D
-
dont be drama queen bo and read what people have actually said.
how about you review posts 2-10 and let us know how you arrived at the conclusion he was an ordinary bloke et al....wait I'll just get some popcorn and buckle myself in, cant wait to hear this :lol
This is the worst post I have ever seen on any forum. To attack Al when he has said very little on the topic you attack him on, actually reduced your credibility more than anything.
Disgraceful post and you should be ashamed of yourself. :shh
-
I find it remarkable that people are making comments on circumstances they know nothing about :wallywink
Wouldn't be OER if we did it any other way Dooks! ;D
Too true Big Smokey ;)
Remarkable yet entertaining :lol
-
I find it remarkable that people are making comments on circumstances they know nothing about :wallywink
Wouldn't be OER if we did it any other way Dooks! ;D
Maybe but it's a forum, there wouldn't be a forum without I'll informed opinion and sniping :cheers
-
has their been a decision yet or are you jumping the gun ::)
A SUPREME Court judge has asked the corporate watchdog to investigate.....
''None of this reflects well on the defendant.''
.... saying it was ''unjust''.
Can you actually read the above in the OP or do you squeeze your eyes shut, cover them with your hands and yell at the top of your voice "I can't see it. It doesn't exist because I can't see it"?
-
dont be drama queen bo and read what people have actually said.
how about you review posts 2-10 and let us know how you arrived at the conclusion he was an ordinary bloke et al....wait I'll just get some popcorn and buckle myself in, cant wait to hear this :lol
This is the worst post I have ever seen on any forum. To attack Al when he has said very little on the topic you attack him on, actually reduced your credibility more than anything.
Disgraceful post and you should be ashamed of yourself. :shh
I argued about the point he made rather than attack him , teeth back in and brain in gear BR and dont be so damn trigger happy :lol
-
Too much
-
matthies
has yellow and black blood going through his veins,
has given the club millions over the years in $$$$ and in services
one of the few we have that has serious $$$$ and actually puts it in the club.
Yeah ;D Remember Christopher Skase :lol He used to put alot of money into the Brisbane Bears :rollin was never his to give. Can name you plenty more who used others money to get enjoyment while they could from clubs they followed.
It would take up too much of my time ;D
BTW Blaisee, Where would all the millions of dollars be ? Seen someone has given so much considering RFC have been scraping the tin for years. Please inform me where it says this person you refer to in the financial report has given millions. Enlighten me while l borrow some of Bojangles popcorn. ;D