Coplin v Al Maha Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1745

Coplin v Al Maha Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1745

The Australian Consumer Law claims failed because the pleaded representations were made but not shown to be false, the plaintiff was not under a special disability sufficient for equitable unconscionability, and the conduct was not characterised as unconscionable within s 21. However, the option deed was unjust under ss 7 and 9 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW because an unsophisticated homeowner was deliberately rushed under commercial pressure into exchanging a put and call option without obtaining the legal advice he intended to obtain, did not understand its legal and practical effect, and faced substantive prejudice including a potential forced sale of his home at a price...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Real Property List; Challenge to Enforceability of Put and Call Option Deed Relying on Australian Consumer Law and Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
The option deed dated 16 October 2014 was found unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW and was to be declared wholly invalid ab initio; the plaintiff's Australian Consumer Law claims failed.
Legal Topics
['contracts Review Act 1980 Nsw' 'unjust Contracts' 'put and Call Option' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'independent Legal Advice' 'caveat Over Land']
['contract Law' 'equity' 'real Property' 'consumer Law'] ['contracts Review Act 1980 Nsw' 'unjust Contracts' 'put and Call Option' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'independent Legal Advice' 'caveat Over Land']

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

Equity Real Property List; Challenge to Enforceability of Put and Call Option Deed Relying on Australian Consumer Law and Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant made false or misleading representations or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under ss 18 and 30 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether the plaintiff was under a special disability giving rise to unconscionable conduct within s 20 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether the defendants engaged in unconscionable conduct under s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether the option deed was unjust in the circumstances relating to it at the time it was made under ss 7 and 9 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW.' 'Whether relief should be granted declaring the option deed void ab initio and requiring withdrawal of the caveat.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Australian Consumer Law claims failed because the pleaded representations were made but not shown to be false, the plaintiff was not under a special disability sufficient for equitable unconscionability, and the conduct was not characterised as unconscionable within s 21. However, the option deed was unjust under ss 7 and 9 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW because an unsophisticated homeowner was deliberately rushed under commercial pressure into exchanging a put and call option without obtaining the legal advice he intended to obtain, did not understand its legal and practical effect, and faced substantive prejudice including a potential forced sale of his home at a price...

Court Disposition

The option deed dated 16 October 2014 was found unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW and was to be declared wholly invalid ab initio; the plaintiff's Australian Consumer Law claims failed.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the contract dated 16 October 2014, styled "Put and Call Option Agreement", made between the plaintiff as Grantor and the first defendant as Grantee is wholly void ab initio.' 'Declare that the first defendant has no right, title or interest in the land known as 7 Canberra Avenue, St Leonards, in the...