CONTRACTS REVIEW ACT - whether mortgage and loan agreement unjust - findings of fact support primary Judge's finding of no injustice.
Quick Take
1A finding that a contract was not unjust under s 7(1) of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) is an evaluative finding of fact reviewable on [name withheld] v [name withheld] principles, and underlying credit-based findings will be disturbed only if glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences from incontrovertible evidence ([name withheld] v [name withheld]).
2On the facts, mortgagors who authorised a family member to obtain a loan secured on their home, knew they could not service it, and were indifferent to whether he gave the lender false information in their name could not establish that the loan agreement or mortgage was unjust. The lender was the party misled. The Court indicated that, absent such knowledge and acquiescence, a lender's failure to verify the borrowers' capacity to repay might well have supported a finding of injustice.
3Whether a loan partly to refinance and partly 'to assist with future investments and personal use' was predominantly for personal purposes, attracting the Consumer Credit Code, was doubted but left undecided. Even if the Code applied, relief under s 70 failed for the same reasons the Contracts Review Act claim failed.
