Coplin v Al Maha Pty Ltd

[2016] NSWSC 1745

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Coplin v Al Maha Pty Limited [2016] NSWSC 1745

Hearing dates:

2, 3 and 4 May and 2 June, 2016

Decision date:

16 December 2016

Jurisdiction:

Equity - Real Property List

Before:

Lindsay J

Decision:

Upon an exercise of jurisdiction under section 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW, an option deed between a home owner (as grantor) and a land developer (as grantee) is to be declared wholly invalid ab initio.

Catchwords:

CONTRACTS - Unconscionable and unjust transactions – Statutory remedies under the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW – Unsophisticated plaintiff rushed into transaction - Lost opportunity to obtain independent legal advice – Lack of understanding of terms and effect of Put and Call Option – Public interest in requiring parties to adhere to contracts balanced against public interest in not holding a party to a contract attended by procedural and substantive injustice.

Legislation Cited:

Australian Consumer Law
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Cth
Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW
Real Property Act 1900 NSW

Cases Cited:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Limited ( 2003) 214 CLR 51
Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1991) 2 NSWLR 1
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457
Canty v Paperlin X Australia Pty Limited [2014] NSWCA 309
Carter v Hyde (1923) 33 CLR 115

Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41 at [86];
PT Limited v Spuds Surf Chatswood Pty Limited [2013] NSWCA 446
Transfield Properties (Kent Street) Pty Ltd v Amos Aked Swift Pty Ltd (1994) 36 NSWLR 321
West v AGC (Advances) Limited (1986) 5 NSWLR 610

Texts Cited:

Baxt, “Unconscionability: High Court emphasies Moral Obloquy in Obiter Dicta Statements” (2016) 90 ALJ 870

 

Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s latest (5th) edition of Equity: Doctrine and Remedies (LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia, 2015)

  PW Young, C Croft and ML Smith, On Equity (Lawbook Co, Australia, 2009) at paragraphs [5.220] and [5.290]

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Plaintiff: Iraklis Gary Coplin
First Defendant: Al Maha Pty Limited ACN 118 230 087
Second Defendant: PropertyFox Pty Limited ACN 149 088 559

Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: M Green SC and B Oliak
First Defendant: TM Faulkner SC
Second Defendant: FFF Salama

  Solicitors:
Plaintiff: E Berman & Co.
First Defendant: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Second Defendant: Catherine Vincent

File Number(s):

2015/00143602

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

1. In these proceedings, relying upon: (a) allegations of “misleading and deceptive conduct”, “false or misleading representations”, “unconscionable conduct” and “accessorial liability” (under sections 2, 18, 20, 21 and 30 of the Australian Consumer Law, read with the remedies available under sections 232(1)(e), 237(1) and 243 of the Law); and (b) a claim for relief under section 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW, the plaintiff challenges the enforceability of an option deed dated 16 October 2014 (“the option deed”).

2. According to its terms, the option deed…