Fast Fix Loans Pty Limited v Mladenko Samardzic
Case
•
[2011] NSWSC 19
•04 February 2011
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fast Fix Loans Pty Limited v Mladenko Samardzic [2011] NSWSC 19
[2011] NSWSC 19
04 February 2011
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Fast Fix Loans Pty Limited has sought an order for possession of residential property after the borrower, Mladenko Samardzic, defaulted on repayments. Samardzic's parents had previously mortgaged their home to secure loans by Samardzic and his company. The parents now seek to set aside the mortgage on the basis of undue influence and have made a cross-claim under the Contracts Review Act 1980. The court was required to determine whether the mortgage was the result of undue influence and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the mortgage under the Contracts Review Act.
The court examined the nature of the transaction, whether it was improvident from the parents' point of view, and whether the mortgagee failed to make any inquiries as to the parents' financial circumstances. The court found that the parents had signed the mortgage documents without independent legal advice, but that a solicitor had explained the contents of the documents to them. The court held that the transaction was improvident from the parents' point of view and that the mortgagee had not made any inquiries as to the parents' financial circumstances. The court held that the explanation by the solicitor did not negate the effect of the improvidence of the transaction.
The court held that the mortgage was unjust as it affected the parents and that the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the mortgage under the Contracts Review Act. The court ordered that the mortgage be set aside and that the parents be compensated for their losses. The court also ordered that the parents be released from their liability under the mortgage.
The court examined the nature of the transaction, whether it was improvident from the parents' point of view, and whether the mortgagee failed to make any inquiries as to the parents' financial circumstances. The court found that the parents had signed the mortgage documents without independent legal advice, but that a solicitor had explained the contents of the documents to them. The court held that the transaction was improvident from the parents' point of view and that the mortgagee had not made any inquiries as to the parents' financial circumstances. The court held that the explanation by the solicitor did not negate the effect of the improvidence of the transaction.
The court held that the mortgage was unjust as it affected the parents and that the court should exercise its discretion to set aside the mortgage under the Contracts Review Act. The court ordered that the mortgage be set aside and that the parents be compensated for their losses. The court also ordered that the parents be released from their liability under the mortgage.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Unconscionable Conduct
-
Unjust Enrichment
-
Undue Influence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Provident Capital Ltd v Naumovski [2013] NSWSC 40
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Fast Fix Loans Pty Ltd v Samardzic
[2011] NSWCA 260
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v Belcastro (No 2)
[2013] NSWSC 1189
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited v Belcastro (No 2)
[2013] NSWSC 1189
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
3
Spina v Permanent Custodians Ltd
[2009] NSWCA 206
Kowalczuk v Accom Finance Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWCA 343
Oshlack v Richmond River Council
[1998] HCA 11