KF Garty Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Tiger Trust v Prasad

In the matter of KF Garty Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Tiger Trust v Prasad, the defendants sought to set aside a default judgment entered against them, alleging unconscionable conduct by the plaintiff and arguing that the interest rate in the loan agreement was excessive and amounted to a penalty. The case was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the defendants' defence was valid and whether the interest rate in the loan agreement constituted a penalty. The court also had to consider the defendants' claim for damages due to the alleged unconscionable conduct and improper use of caveats.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendants had a valid defence to the claim for the loan repayment and whether the interest rate of 8% per month constituted a penalty. The defendants argued that the interest rate was unconscionable and that the plaintiff's conduct in using caveats to block refinancing and enforce the penalty was unconscionable. They also sought to have the default judgment set aside and claimed damages for the alleged unconscionable conduct and improper use of caveats. The court had to assess the evidence provided by the parties and determine whether the defendants' claims were substantiated.

The court found that the interest rate of 8% per month in the loan agreement was a penalty and therefore void and unenforceable. The court also found that the defendants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of unconscionable conduct and improper use of caveats. The court set aside the default judgment and ordered that the defendants pay an amount calculated in accordance with the court's reasons. The court dismissed the defendants' application for an injunction and the removal of caveats and directed the parties to discuss the form of any other consequential orders.

The final orders of the court were that the interest rate of 8% per month in the loan agreement was a penalty and was void and unenforceable. The default judgment was set aside, and the defendants were ordered to pay an amount calculated in accordance with the court's reasons. The application for an injunction and the removal of caveats was dismissed. The court directed the parties to discuss the form of any other consequential orders and to appear before the court to discuss the question of costs.