Reported Decision:
(2003) Aust Contract Reports 90-157
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Elkofairi v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [2002] NSWCA 413 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 41071/01 HEARING DATE(S): 24 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2002PARTIES :
Alia Elkofairi
Permanent Trustee Co LtdJUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Santow JA at 87; Campbell AJA at 112
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :12144/99 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Newman AJ
CA 4107/01
CL 12144/99Wednesday, 18 December 2002BEAZLEY JA
SANTOW JA
CAMPBELL AJA
ALIA ELKOFAIRI v PERMANENT TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED
FACTSThe appellant and her husband gave a mortgage to the respondent over their jointly owned home as security for a loan of approximately for $750,000. Of that about $470,000 was applied in discharge of the existing mortgage over the property. No monies have been paid off the mortgage loan and the respondent could bring possession proceedings for default. The appellant was unaware of how the balance of the monies were utilised.
In response to the claim the appellant sought relief from her obligations under the mortgage under the principles stated in Yerkey v Jones , Commercial Bank of Australia v…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Elkofairi v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] NSWCA 413
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether Mr Elkofairi suffered from a special disadvantage that was known to or ought to have been known by Permanent Trustee Co Ltd. Further, the court had to consider whether the respondent's conduct in obtaining the mortgage was unconscionable, rendering the transaction unjust and therefore unenforceable against Mr Elkofairi. The question of whether Mr Elkofairi was a volunteer, and the implications of any express notice of the primary loan terms, were also relevant considerations.
The court found that Mr Elkofairi did suffer from a special disadvantage, specifically a lack of English proficiency and a limited understanding of financial matters, which rendered him susceptible to exploitation. It was held that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of this disadvantage. The court applied the principles of unconscionability, as established in cases such as *Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio*, finding that the respondent had taken unfair advantage of Mr Elkofairi's vulnerability. The transaction was deemed unjust because the respondent failed to take adequate steps to ensure Mr Elkofairi understood the nature and consequences of the guarantee he was providing.
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the lower court were set aside.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.