Wade v J Daniels and Associates Pty Ltd

In Wade v J Daniels and Associates Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Ms Wade, alleged that the defendant, JDA, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law. Ms Wade sought to retain her home from foreclosure on her home loan mortgage and engaged JDA for assistance. The court was required to determine whether JDA had breached contractual and statutory obligations, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and acted unconscionably. The court found that JDA had not breached any contractual or statutory obligations, nor had it engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Furthermore, the court held that JDA had not acted unconscionably in providing services to Ms Wade.

The court rejected Ms Wade's claim that JDA represented that her home could be saved through refinancing. The evidence showed that JDA had only offered a temporary reprieve from foreclosure to allow Ms Wade time to explore refinancing and consolidate her financial position. The court also held that JDA did not know that Ms Wade's position was hopeless and that there was no realistic prospect of her retaining her home. The court found that JDA had not failed to disclose information to Ms Wade and had not engaged in misleading conduct.

Regarding unconscionable conduct, the court noted that Ms Wade's pleading was not sufficiently specific, but it proceeded to consider the allegation on its merits. The court found that JDA had not acted unconscionably in providing services to Ms Wade, as it had not breached any contractual or statutory obligations, nor had it engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also held that Ms Wade was not in a lesser bargaining position than JDA and that JDA had not imposed an onerous security over Ms Wade's property.

The court dismissed Ms Wade's interlocutory application to re-open the case after judgment was reserved, and it ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $2,000 plus interest from 10 November 2017 to the date of judgment. The court also ordered that the applicant pay 50% of the respondent's costs of the proceeding. The parties have leave to apply to the court to vary the costs order or seek further orders consequent upon the judgment of the court.