Ristic v Greater Building Society Ltd

The case of *Ristic v Greater Building Society Ltd* concerned a dispute arising from a secured loan transaction. The appellant, Mr Ristic, challenged the validity and enforceability of certain terms within the loan agreement and associated mortgage documents, specifically those relating to fees charged upon default. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the "default administration fee" charged by the lender was an unjust term under the *Contracts Review Act 1980* (NSW), and whether the lender was entitled to recover its direct enforcement expenses in addition to this fee. The court also considered whether the absence of a specific right for the mortgagor to have the lender's legal costs assessed rendered the contract unjust.

The Court of Appeal held that the default administration fee was intended to cover indirect costs associated with default, and its inclusion did not preclude the lender from recovering direct enforcement expenses. The court reasoned that the *Contracts Review Act* requires an assessment of the contract as a whole, and in this instance, the existence of alternative mechanisms for controlling unreasonable expenses, such as the general law and the lender's duty of good faith, meant that the absence of a specific mortgagor's right to have legal costs assessed did not render the contract unjust.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.