Maggbury Pty Ltd & Anor v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd

Maggbury Pty Ltd and another party (the applicants) sought to restrain Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) from continuing certain proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants sought to prevent the respondent from relying on a particular clause within a contract, alleging it was unconscionable and therefore void under section 20 of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct in seeking to enforce the contractual clause constituted unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the ACL. Specifically, the court had to determine if the circumstances surrounding the formation and attempted enforcement of the contract were such that it would be against good conscience to allow the respondent to rely on the impugned clause.

Callinan J, sitting in chambers, considered the nature of unconscionable conduct under the ACL, noting that it requires more than mere unfairness. His Honour found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the respondent's actions were unconscionable in the circumstances. The applicants had failed to establish the necessary elements to bring the conduct within the scope of section 20 of the ACL, which requires a finding of unconscionability in trade or commerce.

The application was dismissed.