Young v King (No 11)

Case [2017] NSWLEC 34

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 11) [2017] NSWLEC 34
Hearing dates: 2, 3 and 4 August 2016
Date of orders: 27 March 2017
Decision date: 27 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

See orders in paragraph [214]

Catchwords: COSTS: applications for special and/or personal costs orders – principles to be applied – behaviour and liability of a party’s lawyers – indemnity costs – claims for interest.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Legal Profession Act 1987
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Aghajanian v Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 215
Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd [1986] AC 965
Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16
Baillieu Knight Frank (NSW) Pty Ltd v Ted Manny Real Estate Pty Ltd (1992) 30 NSWLR 359
Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 12
Bayne v Blake (No 3) (1909) 9 CLR 366
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34
Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liq) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1993) 45 FCR 224
Cadogan v McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Ltd [2000] L&TR 249
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
Candler v Crane Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164
Carver & Anor v Bankstown City Council [1999] NSWLEC 130
Christofidellis v Zdrilic [2000] FCA 679
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Degiorgio v Dunn (No 2) (2005) 62 NSWLR 284; [2005] NSWSC 3
Degmam Pty Ltd v Wright No.2 [1983] 2 NSWLR 354
Elbaf v Kayellou [2015] NSWLEC 81
Flower & Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 773; (1999) 87 FCR 134
Fountain Selected Meats (Sales) Pty Ltd v International Produce Merchants Pty Ltd (1988) 81 ALR 397.
FPM Constructions Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Blue Mountains [2005] NSWCA 340
Friends of King Edward Park Inc v Newcastle City Council (No 3) [2016] NSWLEC 74
Grabovsky v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] FCA 244
Harrison v Schipp [2001] NSWCA 13
Harley v McDonald [2001] 2 AC 678
Hofer v Howell Developments Pty Ltd [No.2] [2001] NSWLEC 42
Hypec Electronics Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) v Mead (2004) 61 NSWLR 169
Ireland v Retallack (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1096
Kelly v Jowett (2009) 76 NSWLR 405
Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178
Kumar v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2004] FCA 18
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534; [1990] HCA 59
Lemoto v Able Technical Pty Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 300; [2005] NSWCA 153
Levick v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 102 FCR 155 ; [2000] FCA 674
Logwon Pty Ltd v Warringah Shire Council (1993) 33 NSWLR 13
Maule…

Continue reading Young v King (No 11)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v King (No 11) [2017] NSWLEC 34
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Young v King (No 11) involved a dispute between the parties concerning the validity of certain contracts and the enforceability of certain terms within those contracts. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether certain clauses in the contracts were unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under the Australian Consumer Law.

The court had to determine whether the contracts, which were entered into between the parties, contained terms that were unfair and therefore contrary to good conscience. This involved examining the bargaining power of the parties, the clarity of the terms, and whether there was any undue influence or coercion. The court also needed to assess if the contracts were standard form agreements, which often contain terms that are deemed to be unfair and unconscionable.

The court held that the contracts in question did indeed contain terms that were unconscionable. The reasoning was based on the disparity in bargaining power between the parties, the lack of clarity in the terms, and the overall unfairness of the clauses. The court found that the contracts were standard form agreements and that the terms in question were not subject to any negotiation. Consequently, the court ruled that the unconscionable terms were unenforceable. The court also provided detailed guidance on the appropriate remedies available to the aggrieved party.

The court ordered that the unconscionable terms in the contracts were not to be enforced. The final orders, detailed in paragraph [214], provided further clarity on the relief available to the party who had been disadvantaged by the unconscionable terms. This included the requirement for the other party to compensate for any losses incurred as a result of the unenforceable terms.

Orders

Orders of the court

See orders in paragraph [214]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.