Evolution Lifestyles Pty Ltd v Clarke (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1237

Evolution Lifestyles Pty Ltd v Clarke (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1237

The plaintiff failed to comply strictly with contractual and statutory procedures for default and termination. The contract was unjust due to significant inequality of bargaining power, inadequate explanation, misrepresentation, lack of negotiation opportunities, undue pressure, and terms heavily favoring the plaintiff. Relief should be granted, setting aside the contract, returning the deposit and improvements value, and requiring payment by the plaintiff to the first defendant as just compensation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; cross-claim upheld; contract set aside; judgment for first defendant.
Legal Topics
['possession of Land' 'rent to Buy Mortgage' 'mortgage Default' 'unjust Contract' 'undue Influence' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'national Credit Code']
['real Property' 'contracts' 'credit Law'] ['possession of Land' 'rent to Buy Mortgage' 'mortgage Default' 'unjust Contract' 'undue Influence' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'national Credit Code']

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

Principal Judgment / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff lawfully terminated the contract and is entitled to possession and monetary payment' 'Whether the contract was unjust in the circumstances under the National Credit Code or Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)' 'Whether the first defendant is entitled to relief including return of deposit and compensation for improvements']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to comply strictly with contractual and statutory procedures for default and termination. The contract was unjust due to significant inequality of bargaining power, inadequate explanation, misrepresentation, lack of negotiation opportunities, undue pressure, and terms heavily favoring the plaintiff. Relief should be granted, setting aside the contract, returning the deposit and improvements value, and requiring payment by the plaintiff to the first defendant as just compensation.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; cross-claim upheld; contract set aside; judgment for first defendant.

Orders

  • ['The statement of claim is dismissed.' 'The cross-claim is upheld and the contract set aside. Judgment is entered for the first defendant.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant the sum of $114,889.93.' 'The first defendant is to give the plaintiff vacant possession of the Rutherford property within 30 days...