Administrative tribunals owe a higher burden of explanation and assistance to unrepresented parties than courts owe to represented parties; a tribunal member's statement that they are 'loathe to adjourn' may constitute an effective refusal of adjournment when addressed to a layperson. Pursuing a statute-barred debt against an impoverished debtor without disclosing the limitation defence may constitute unconscionable conduct where the debtor's ignorance of the defence seriously affects their ability to judge their own best interests. The willingness of an impoverished debtor to pay a substantial sum to settle a long-standing statute-barred debt is probably sufficient to raise the inference that the debtor does not know of the limitation period and to cast upon the creditor the burden of establishing the transaction was fair, just and reasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.