Appellate review of a finding that a contract is not unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) is conducted in accordance with Warren v Coombes principles (the appellate court is in as good a position as the trial judge to decide on proper inferences from established facts), not House v The King principles (which apply only to the discretionary stage of granting relief). A party cannot raise for the first time on appeal a contention that a litigation funding commission offends community standards where that point could have been met by the calling of evidence below. A commercially experienced person who understands a transaction, has rational reasons for entering it, obtains professional advice during a cooling off period, and negotiates amendments is unlikely to obtain relief under the Contracts Review Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.