Forbes v Liu [2020] NSWCATAP 196

Forbes v Liu [2020] NSWCATAP 196

The Senior Member's finding of unconscionable conduct against the appellant could not be sustained because the findings were limited to the appellant having some degree of involvement with a company in breach of its contract with the respondent, in circumstances where the appellant had no contact with the respondent, and there were no findings of special disadvantage or exploitation sufficient to constitute unconscionable conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 1 May 2020
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'australian Consumer Law (nsw)' 'error of Law' 'property Management Agreement']
['consumer Law' 'appeals'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'australian Consumer Law (nsw)' 'error of Law' 'property Management Agreement']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 1 May 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Senior Member applied an incorrect test for determining unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' 'Whether conduct confined to involvement with a company that breached a property management contract, without contact with the respondent, could sustain a finding of unconscionable conduct against the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Senior Member's finding of unconscionable conduct against the appellant could not be sustained because the findings were limited to the appellant having some degree of involvement with a company in breach of its contract with the respondent, in circumstances where the appellant had no contact with the respondent, and there were no findings of special disadvantage or exploitation sufficient to constitute unconscionable conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'Order 1 made by Senior Member Meadows on 1 May 2020 is varied so as to read "Jeffrey Feng is liable to pay the amount of $15,804.61 to Jajing Liu".']