Knezevic v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Ms. Knezevic, and the first respondent, Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd, and the second respondent, Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd. Ms. Knezevic had borrowed money from Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd and invested it in a property venture that ultimately failed, causing her a loss. She alleged that this loss was a result of misleading or deceptive conduct by the solicitor for the lender, which led to her entering into the loan agreement. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the conduct of the solicitor for the lender constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under consumer law, and if so, whether there was a sufficient and direct causal link between that conduct and the appellant's loss. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the loan agreement was unjust under section 7 of the Contracts Review Act 1980, given that the lender's only requirement for assessing repayment ability was a declaration from the borrower, and the loan was used to refinance an earlier investment loan.

Regarding the consumer law claim, the court found that the alleged representations were not contained within the solicitor's certificate. Crucially, the court determined that there was no sufficient and direct link between any conduct of the solicitor and the appellant's loss. On the Contracts Review Act claim, the court held that it was not established that the appellant was unable to act in her own commercial interests, nor that the loan was unjust in all the circumstances. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated grounds for relief under either of these heads.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents for the appeal.