Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty LtdCitation:[2022] HCA 6Before:Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:16 Mar 2022Case Number:M13/2021Read more

Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty LtdCitation:[2022] HCA 6Before:Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Steward, Gleeson JJDate:16 Mar 2022Case Number:M13/2021Read more

The court held that the respondents acted unconscionably by seeking to enforce the guarantee and mortgages against the appellant, as their agent was aware or ought to have been aware of the appellant's special disadvantage and vulnerability, and reliance on certificates of independent advice was insufficient in the circumstances.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Conduct, Asset Based Lending, Agency, Independent Advice, Special Disadvantage
Equity Unconscionable Conduct Asset Based Lending Agency Independent Advice Special Disadvantage

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acted unconscionably in seeking to enforce rights against the appellant
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' agent had knowledge of the appellant's circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were entitled to rely on certificates of independent advice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents acted unconscionably by seeking to enforce the guarantee and mortgages against the appellant, as their agent was aware or ought to have been aware of the appellant's special disadvantage and vulnerability, and reliance on certificates of independent advice was insufficient in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Enforcement of guarantee and mortgages set aside
  • Respondents restrained from enforcing rights against appellant's properties