Davey v Challenger Managed Investments [2003] NSWCA 172

Davey v Challenger Managed Investments [2003] NSWCA 172

The Court held that the transactions were not unconscionable in equity and the contracts were not unjust under the Contracts Review Act. The appellants received independent legal advice, understood the implications, and there was no evidence of undue influence or misrepresentation. The lender had no notice of any special disadvantage. Thus, no basis for equitable or statutory relief was established.

Parties
Appellant: Beryl May Davey; Appellant: Gladys Mary Crees; Respondent: Challenger Managed Investments Ltd; Respondent: Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Transactions, Contracts Review Act, Guarantor Liability, Independent Legal Advice
Equity Unconscionable Transactions Contracts Review Act Guarantor Liability Independent Legal Advice

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beryl May Davey

Appellant

Gladys Mary Crees

Appellant

Challenger Managed Investments Ltd

Respondent

Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transactions were unconscionable in equity
  2. 2 Whether the contracts were unjust under the Contracts Review Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the transactions were not unconscionable in equity and the contracts were not unjust under the Contracts Review Act. The appellants received independent legal advice, understood the implications, and there was no evidence of undue influence or misrepresentation. The lender had no notice of any special disadvantage. Thus, no basis for equitable or statutory relief was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Orders of Cripps AJ affirmed