› Where the defendant claimed that a term of the deed was a penalty and therefore unenforceable
› Where the Court found that the provision was not a penalty because it could not properly be characterised as having the function of inducing performance of another provision of the deed
Contracts
› Unjust contracts
› Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
› Unjust
› Where the plaintiff sought to enforce a deed of acknowledgement of debt
› Where there was a material inequality of bargaining power between the plaintiff and defendant
› Where the plaintiff exercised unfair pressure or unfair tactics in causing the defendant to enter into the deed
› Where the Court found that provisions of the deed were unjust at the time the deed was entered into within the meaning of s 7 of the Act
Land Law
› Caveats
› Caveatable interest
› Where the defendant claimed that a deed executed by her did not grant a charge over the property in favour of the plaintiff to secure the payment of monies under the deed so that the plaintiff did not have a caveatable interest to support the caveat that he lodged
› Where the Court found that the defendant’s consent to the lodgement of the caveat demonstrated an intention that a charge would be created over the property by the lodgement
Case Details
Citation[2021] NSWSC 592
CourtNSWSC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
