AA Technical Services Pty Ltd v Diedler [No 2]

In the case of AA Technical Services Pty Ltd v Diedler [No 2], the plaintiff, a tenant of commercial premises, alleged that the defendants, who were the directors of the deregistered company that was the landlord, engaged in unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute arose from the landlord's intention to redevelop the premises, leading to the plaintiff being locked out of the leased premises and prevented from trading, which ultimately resulted in the destruction of the plaintiff's business. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants' conduct amounted to statutory unconscionable conduct, and if so, whether it breached the lease, and what damages were owed to the plaintiff.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants' actions constituted a contravention of the statutory prohibition against unconscionable conduct and if the plaintiff had suffered damages due to the defendants' conduct. The court had to conduct a comprehensive fact-specific analysis of the circumstances surrounding the contention of statutory unconscionable conduct, taking into account the relative strengths of the respective bargaining positions, the removal and damage to the plaintiff's property, and the destruction of the plaintiff's business. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff had suffered damages as a result of the defendants' conduct and, if so, how those damages should be assessed.

The court found that the defendants' conduct did amount to statutory unconscionable conduct, as it was established that the defendants breached the lease and engaged in conduct that led to the plaintiff being locked out of the premises and the destruction of the plaintiff's business. The court concluded that the defendants' actions were unconscionable, considering the entire factual matrix and the significant power imbalance between the parties. The court also found that the plaintiff had indeed suffered damages due to the defendants' conduct and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff damages for the loss of property. The court's decision was grounded in the remedial purpose of the statute and took into account the lacuna of documentary evidence and the lost or destroyed books and records, which were a consequence of the defendants' deliberate wrongdoing.