Westpac Banking Corporation v Chadha

The case of Westpac Banking Corporation v Chadha involved a dispute between the bank and the appellants, who had executed a series of loans and guarantees in their personal capacity and as directors of a company. The bank instituted proceedings for possession of two of the properties, which the Master of the Supreme Court granted. The appellants appealed the Master's decision, arguing that the order for possession should be set aside. The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the Master erred in finding that the appellants had not raised an arguable defence, whether the bank engaged in "pure asset lending", and whether the unrepresented appellants were given insufficient opportunity to put their case.

The court held that the appeal should be dismissed and the order for possession should not be set aside. The Master did not err in finding that the appellants had not raised an arguable defence, as they were bound by the terms and conditions of the documents by their signature. The court also found that the Master did not err in finding that the bank had not acted unconscionably, as the appellants were unable to demonstrate that the bank was indifferent to their ability to repay the loans or that they suffered from a "special disadvantage". The court further found that the Master did not fail to give the unrepresented appellants sufficient opportunity to put their defence, and that the Master did not err in rejecting the appellants' general assertion that the loans had been granted in violation of the National Credit Code.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The court held that the Master's findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellants had not established any of the grounds of appeal. The court also noted that the appellants had not made any attempt to issue substantive proceedings for equitable or other relief and had elected to proceed with the appeal only. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the costs of the appeal be awarded to the bank.