Pambris v Makis

The case of Pambris v Makis involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant executed a mortgage in 2010, which recorded an advance of $1.21 million made to the first defendant and her husband, securing repayment of the advance over their jointly owned real estate. The first defendant's husband subsequently became bankrupt, and the plaintiff sued the first defendant on the mortgage. The first defendant disputed the amount of the advance and sought to set the mortgage aside. Additionally, the first defendant executed a guarantee in 2017 of certain alleged obligations of her then-husband to the plaintiff arising from deeds of loan in 2005 and 2009 and the 2010 mortgage. The first defendant claimed that both the 2010 mortgage and the 2017 guarantee were executed as a result of the unconscionable conduct or undue influence of the plaintiff.

The legal issues in this case were whether the 2010 mortgage secured the alleged advance, whether the first defendant was in a position of special disadvantage in relation to the plaintiff in relation to the execution of the two documents, and whether the first defendant was under the actual undue influence of the plaintiff. The first defendant also sought to set aside the 2010 mortgage and 2017 guarantee for noncompliance with the National Consumer Credit Code.

The court found that the 2010 mortgage did not secure the full amount of the advance as alleged by the plaintiff. However, the court found that the first defendant was not under the actual undue influence of the plaintiff, and therefore, the 2010 mortgage and 2017 guarantee were not set aside. The court also found that the National Consumer Credit Code did not apply to the credit provided by the plaintiff as it was not provided in the course of a business of providing credit.

The court ordered that the 2010 mortgage and 2017 guarantee remain in place, and that the first defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the amount of the advance as recorded in the mortgage. The first defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.