McLennan by his tutor Kennedy v McLennan

The Court of Appeal held that there is no rule or principle requiring that legal advice given to a party in the context of an unconscionable conduct claim must be 'evaluative' — what matters is that the weaker party had the opportunity to obtain, and did obtain, advice of the required type from someone capable of giving it. The special disadvantage in such cases is best understood as ignorance of the consequences of a legal transaction, often the product of lack of sophistication or cognitive impairment, which legal advice is designed to ameliorate. Where a party was educated, experienced in business, cognitively capable, and received extensive legal and financial advice, the fact that the advice did not address the merits or wisdom of the transactions did not establish a special disadvantage, particularly where the legal consequences were plain and the party was capable of assessing the merits independently. The Court expressly left open the precise scope of the Nitopi principle concerning whether passive retention of a benefit after later discovery of a special disadvantage can found an unconscionability claim.