Gooley v NSW Rural Assistance Authority

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between Gooley and the NSW Rural Assistance Authority concerning a credit facility. The central issue was whether a term of the credit facility had been validly varied, and if so, whether the Authority had subsequently repudiated the contract by maintaining that the variation was effective.

The Court was required to determine several legal questions. These included whether the alleged variation of the credit facility was supported by adequate consideration, and whether the Authority's conduct in varying the term and in making the loan constituted misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable conduct under the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* (Cth). Further, the Court had to consider whether the Authority breached its obligations under the Code of Banking Practice, specifically regarding the exercise of care and skill and the obligation to assist the borrower with financial difficulties. Finally, the Court examined whether the loan was an "unjust" credit contract under the National Credit Code and whether the Authority had failed to respond to hardship notices as required by that Code. The Court also considered whether any enforcement action taken by the Authority contravened the *Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994* (NSW).

The Court reasoned that the difference in obligations arising from the variation was capable of benefiting either party, thus providing adequate consideration for the variation. The Court found that the contract had been effectively varied. Regarding the statutory claims, the Court determined that there were no questions of principle involved in the application of the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* (Cth), the Code of Banking Practice, the National Credit Code, or the *Farm Debt Mediation Act 1994* (NSW) to the facts of the case. The Court concluded that the predominant purpose for which credit was provided was not a Code purpose, meaning the National Credit Code did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.