Govindasamy v Marketlend Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr. Govindasamy (the appellant) and Marketlend Pty Ltd (the respondent) regarding the enforceability of a deed of settlement. The deed was entered into to resolve outstanding amounts due under loan agreements, for which the appellant had provided a personal guarantee for debts owed by his business to the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent had engaged in unconscionable conduct. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the deed of settlement was legally enforceable, notwithstanding the appellant's allegations of unconscionable conduct, and whether the trial judge had erred in refusing leave to adduce evidence from a further witness. This refusal was based on the appellant's failure to comply with directions regarding the service of affidavits and the potential prejudice to the respondent, with the evidence also being considered irrelevant to the enforceability of the deed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the deed of settlement was legally enforceable. The court reasoned that the appellant had failed to establish the elements of unconscionable conduct. Furthermore, the court upheld the trial judge's decision to refuse leave to adduce further evidence, concluding that the failure to comply with procedural directions and the potential prejudice to the respondent were sufficient grounds for the refusal. The evidence sought to be adduced was also deemed irrelevant to the central question of the deed's enforceability.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, with a provision for either party to seek a variation of this costs order within 14 days by providing notice of motion and supporting materials.