Verduci v Golotta

In the case of Verduci v Golotta, the dispute involved a 1988 loan and mortgage transaction between the parties. The interest rate on the loan was 20%, and the mortgage was registered in 2008. The borrower, Golotta, argued that any action on the loan was barred by the Limitation Act, and sought relief under the Contracts Review Act, claiming undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The lender, Verduci, sought to exercise the power of sale as the registered mortgagee under the Real Property Act.

The court needed to determine whether the lender's action on the loan was barred by the Limitation Act, and if so, whether the lender could still exercise its powers as a registered mortgagee under the Real Property Act. The court also had to consider whether the loan and mortgage transaction was "unjust" and if it could be varied under the Contracts Review Act, and whether equitable relief could be granted to set aside the transaction on terms as to repayment of the principal and reasonable interest.

The court held that the lender's action on the loan was indeed statute-barred. However, as the mortgage had been registered, the lender could still exercise the powers conferred on a registered mortgagee under the Real Property Act. The court found the loan and mortgage transaction to be "unjust" and varied it under the Contracts Review Act, setting aside the transaction on terms as to repayment of the principal and reasonable interest. Equitable relief was granted in this case.

No further orders were made beyond the variation of the loan and mortgage transaction under the Contracts Review Act, and the granting of equitable relief to set aside the transaction on terms as to repayment of the principal and reasonable interest.