CIVIL PROCEDURE — Hearings — Procedural fairness — primary judge refused leave for self-represented plaintiff to separate issues of liability and quantum at hearing — no breach of procedural fairness established
EQUITY — Economic duress — purchaser of land lodged caveat before settlement — threat of proceedings for specific performance — no illegitimate pressure established
EQUITY — Unconscionable conduct — Special disability or disadvantage — appellant represented by conveyancer in negotiations of contract for sale — respondents said to have had greater resources — no special disadvantage established
Quick Take
1A refusal under UCPR r 28.2 to separate liability and quantum mid-hearing is a discretionary decision reviewable on House v The King principles. Whether it denies procedural fairness depends on whether, in all the circumstances, the litigant had a reasonable opportunity to present their case. A self-represented litigant's late application, made on the second day of a four-day hearing after ample preparation time, did not establish unfairness on the facts. The opposing party is equally entitled to a fair and final determination.
2In a genuine dispute about the validity of a contract for the sale of land, a purchaser's conduct is not illegitimate pressure capable of founding economic duress, whether under the Karam or the Crescendo standard. That conduct includes asserting that the contract is enforceable, lodging a caveat, relying on counsel's advice and threatening expensive specific performance proceedings. The Court left open which of those standards is correct.
3For unconscionable conduct, the fact that a vendor was advised by a conveyancer while the purchaser had solicitors is not a special disadvantage seriously affecting the vendor's ability to judge their own best interests. Disadvantage arising later in litigation, such as being self-represented, cannot bear on a contract formed earlier.
