Fast Fix Loans Pty Ltd v Samardzic [2011] NSWCA 260

Fast Fix Loans Pty Ltd v Samardzic [2011] NSWCA 260

It was open to the primary judge to conclude that the deeds signed by the respondents were unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) because the lender had no regard to their ability to meet obligations, the respondents derived no benefit, there was material inequality of bargaining power, and the respondents did not understand the nature and effect of the transaction. The relief granted – setting aside the respondents’ liability – was appropriate as the circumstances required the loss to lie with the appellant lender.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'unjust Contracts' 'asset Lending' 'guarantees' 'bargaining Power' 'relief Against Enforcement of Contract']
['contract Law'] ['contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'unjust Contracts' 'asset Lending' 'guarantees' 'bargaining Power' 'relief Against Enforcement of Contract']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deed of loan, guarantee and mortgage executed by the respondents was unjust within the meaning of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)' 'Whether relief should be granted under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) to set aside respondents’ liability' 'Whether lender’s lack of enquiry about the guarantors’ ability to repay, and their lack of benefit from the transaction, rendered the contract unjust']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the primary judge to conclude that the deeds signed by the respondents were unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) because the lender had no regard to their ability to meet obligations, the respondents derived no benefit, there was material inequality of bargaining power, and the respondents did not understand the nature and effect of the transaction. The relief granted – setting aside the respondents’ liability – was appropriate as the circumstances required the loss to lie with the appellant lender.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']