The Court held that Steve and Lilya Melnikoff's unconscionability defence to enforcement of guarantees and a mortgage over their Point Piper property failed because the critical factual foundation — that the lender's representative told their son Ilya that the parents' liability would be capped at $1.8 million — was not established, the contemporaneous documents being inconsistent with and weighing heavily against the oral evidence. On the doctrinal question of whether Garcia v NAB should be extended from spousal relationships to the relationship between a son and his elderly parents, the Court held that while there is much to be said for such an extension, it was not open to a single judge of the Supreme Court to take that step, following the New South Wales Court of Appeal's approach in Elkofairi. The Court also found that Steve and Lilya were volunteers notwithstanding their status as discretionary objects of trusts associated with the Luxcon group and Lilya's employment within the group.
The full text is available to signed-in members.