Anderson v National Australia Bank

In the case of Anderson v National Australia Bank, the plaintiff sought relief from enforcement of mortgage securities held by the bank against her properties, on the basis that the bank had engaged in unconscionable conduct. The plaintiff had a history of manic depressive illness and claimed that the bank knew of her condition and took unfair advantage of her special disadvantage. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issues involved the recognition of unconscionable conduct under equitable principles, the extent to which the plaintiff's psychiatric condition constituted a special disadvantage, and whether there were any other factors that created a situation of disadvantage for the plaintiff.

The court examined whether the plaintiff's condition was sufficiently evident to the bank to render enforcement of the mortgages unfair. The decision in Louth v Diprose was cited as authority, which established that the party asserting unconscionability must demonstrate that their disadvantage was both special and apparent to the other party. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff's alleged sexual relationship with a bank manager constituted a situation of disadvantage. The court was required to assess whether the trial judge's conduct demonstrated any bias, particularly in relation to the judge's interventions during the evidence.

The court found that the plaintiff's psychiatric condition did not amount to a special disadvantage that was apparent to the bank. It was held that the bank was not aware of the full extent of the plaintiff's condition, and therefore, it could not be said that enforcement of the mortgages was unconscionable. The court also determined that the alleged sexual relationship did not constitute a situation of disadvantage in the context of the case. Regarding the issue of bias, the court concluded that the trial judge's conduct did not create an apprehension of bias, as the judge's interventions were within the proper function of judicial oversight during the trial. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for relief from enforcement of the mortgages was dismissed.