Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd

The appeal in *Satchithanantham v National Australia Bank Ltd* concerned a loan agreement and mortgage entered into by the appellant with the respondent. The loan funds were used to discharge an existing mortgage and to finance the appellant's husband's business. The appellant sought to set aside or vary the loan agreement.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the loan agreement should be set aside or varied under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), and whether the doctrine of undue influence, as established in *Yerkey v Jones*, applied to the circumstances. Specifically, the court considered the availability of the undue influence defence where the party seeking to set aside the transaction had received a benefit from it.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not established grounds for setting aside the contract under the Contracts Review Act. Furthermore, the court held that the principles of undue influence under *Yerkey v Jones* were not applicable in this instance, particularly given that the appellant had benefited from the loan. The court did, however, vary the orders below concerning the writ of possession, postponing its issuance until after 1 November 2009, subject to the appellant making specific interest payments in September and October 2009. Failure to comply with these payment terms would allow the respondent to apply for the writ of possession within seven days of any default.