The Court conducted a detailed factual inquiry into whether guarantors/mortgagors were aware of the substance of a refinancing transaction despite limited English, finding on the evidence that the borrowers' son translated and explained the key terms and that the guarantors had sufficient commercial experience to understand the transactions. The solicitor (Mr Green) admitted breach of fiduciary duty by acting for both lender (CPF) and borrower/guarantors without adequate disclosure, but the judgment (which appears to be incomplete/truncated before final orders) extensively addressed the factual foundation for the cross-claims alleging unconscionability under the ASIC Act, unjustness under the Contracts Review Act, and rescission, including whether the guarantors would not have entered the transaction but for the undisclosed conflict — a proposition the Court appeared sceptical of given the guarantors' urgent need to refinance and the more favourable terms of the CPF loan compared to the ALS forbearance terms. The case also raised CPF's contingent claim for subrogation to ALS's rights and a secondary cross-claim against the solicitors' partnership for breach of duty to CPF.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.