Nemeth v Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Ms. Nemeth, and the respondent, Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd, regarding a litigation funding agreement. Ms. Nemeth sought to have the agreement declared unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). The primary judge had found the contract not to be unjust.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the litigation funding agreement was not unjust. This involved considering whether the primary judge's findings of fact were inconsistent with incontrovertible facts, uncontested testimony, or compelling inferences, and whether the contract was offensive to community standards, improvident, or akin to a "risk-free loan". The Court also considered whether Ms. Nemeth was denied procedural fairness by not being afforded an opportunity to make submissions on findings made by the primary judge that were not pleaded by either party.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles governing appeals by way of rehearing, as established in cases such as *Fox v Percy* and *House v The King*. It held that an appellate court is able to determine whether a contract is unjust based on proper inferences drawn from established facts. The Court found that the primary judge's findings were not demonstrably wrong and that Ms. Nemeth had not been denied procedural fairness.

The appeal was dismissed, and Ms. Nemeth was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.