Financial desperation constituting an inability to obtain finance from any other source, combined with mounting debts and risk of losing one's only contract, is capable of constituting a 'special disability' for the purposes of the equitable doctrine of unconscionable dealing, even where the borrower is an experienced businessman who proposed the impugned terms himself. The fact that the weaker party proposed the unconscionable terms does not preclude relief where the proposal was itself a product of the disability. A lender who accepts such terms with knowledge of the borrower's desperate circumstances bears the onus of proving the transaction was fair, just and reasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.