Wakim v Senworth Capital Pty Ltd

• 1. Equity
  2. › Unconscionable conduct
  3. › Standard of knowledge required of stronger party
  4. › Whether proof of predatory state of mind required
  5. › Whether mere inadvertence or indifference sufficient
  6. › Relevance of distinction between active and passive conduct
  7. › Third party transactions
  8. › Tension between Kakavas v Crown Melbourne and subsequent authorities
• 1. Equity
  2. › Undue influence
  3. › Actual undue influence of husband over wife
  4. › Rule in Yerkey v Jones
  5. › Effect on third party lenders
  6. › Whether actual or constructive knowledge required on part of third party
  7. › Whether notice of weaker party's disadvantage sufficient
• 1. Contract
  2. › Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW)
  3. › Unjust contracts
  4. › Whether unjustness can be established by reference to matters of which counterparty was ignorant
  5. › Whether knowledge of counterparty is essential factor
  6. › Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), ss 7, 9
• 1. Practice and Procedure
  2. › Default judgment
  3. › Setting aside
  4. › Whether reasonably arguable defence on the merits
  5. › Standard of evidence required on interlocutory application
  6. › Requirement to take applicant's evidence at its highest
  7. › Relevance of delay

Quick Take