Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 805

Blacker v National Australia Bank Ltd [2000] NSWSC 805

Although there was some blame on the bank and negligent misstatements were made (already compensated by damages), there was not the requisite high level of injustice in the formation or substance of the contract under the CRA. Plaintiffs were not deprived of a real or informed choice to contract, were not oppressed,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Raymond Blacker; Plaintiff: Christine Blacker; Defendant: National Australia Bank Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Claim Under Contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Conduct, Unjust Contracts, Bank Lending, Inequality of Bargaining Power, Negligent Misstatement
Contract Law Equity Banking and Finance Unconscionable Conduct Unjust Contracts Bank Lending Inequality of Bargaining Power Negligent Misstatement

Source-derived case record

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Raymond Blacker

Plaintiff

Christine Blacker

Plaintiff

National Australia Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim Under Contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contracts (loan agreements, mortgages, guarantees, indemnities) were unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the Contracts Review Act aspect pursuant to Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999
  3. 3 Whether relief (setting aside contracts, compensation) should be granted under the CRA

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was some blame on the bank and negligent misstatements were made (already compensated by damages), there was not the requisite high level of injustice in the formation or substance of the contract under the CRA. Plaintiffs were not deprived of a real or informed choice to contract, were not oppressed, and the contracts were not substantively unjust. No threat, force, or oppressive contract terms were present, and procedural and substantive injustice were not satisfied to the legal standard required for relief. The claim must therefore fail and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Appropriate procedural orders to formalise the claim as proceedings in the Supreme Court; otherwise, proceedings dismissed with costs.