Dalton and Schaeffer as Executors of the Estate of the Late John Herman Schaeffer v Naegeli [2024] NSWCA 51

Dalton and Schaeffer as Executors of the Estate of the Late John Herman Schaeffer v Naegeli [2024] NSWCA 51

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge was correct to find no unconscionable conduct by Mr Naegeli; Mr Schaeffer was a sophisticated party who entered the Guarantee freely and with a sufficient understanding of its nature and effect. The Guarantee was not unjust for the purposes of the Contracts Review Act in the circumstances. The Court allowed the cross-appeal in relation to the finding that clause 2.1 of the Guarantee was unjust, finding it was not. The interest orders were varied consistent with the terms sought in the Statement of Claim and Civil Procedure Act. Costs were awarded to Mr Naegeli.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal in Civil Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed (in part as to ground 1); orders below set aside and new orders made; costs to respondent/cross-appellant.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'relief Under Contracts Review Act' 'award of Interest on Judgment' 'enforcement of Guarantee']
['guarantees and Indemnities' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'relief Under Contracts Review Act' 'award of Interest on Judgment' 'enforcement of Guarantee']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal in Civil Proceedings / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Naegeli did not act unconscionably within the meaning of s 12CB of the ASIC Act or s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether the primary judge erred by not setting the Guarantee aside in whole under s 7 of the Contracts Review Act' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that interest should accrue at 10% as this was not pleaded' 'Whether the Guarantee was unjust for the purposes of the Contracts Review Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge was correct to find no unconscionable conduct by Mr Naegeli; Mr Schaeffer was a sophisticated party who entered the Guarantee freely and with a sufficient understanding of its nature and effect. The Guarantee was not unjust for the purposes of the Contracts Review Act in the circumstances. The Court allowed the cross-appeal in relation to the finding that clause 2.1 of the Guarantee was unjust, finding it was not. The interest orders were varied consistent with the terms sought in the Statement of Claim and Civil Procedure Act. Costs were awarded to Mr Naegeli.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed (in part as to ground 1); orders below set aside and new orders made; costs to respondent/cross-appellant.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'Ground 1 of the cross-appeal is allowed and it is unnecessary to determine ground 2.' 'The orders made by the primary judge on 16 June 2023 are set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered:' '1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $6.5 million.' '2. Interest is payable...