Lavin v Toppi
[2015] HCA 4
Citation 1
…tor must present “ a positive case, supported by evidence ”; e.the High Court in Lavin v. Toppi (2015) 254 CLR 459 at page 471 stated that, “ While the Bank’s covenant not to sue meant that the liability of the appellants was not enforceable by legal proceedings, it remained enforceable by other means such as relianc…
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd
[2003] HCA 18
Citation 2
…that condition or circumstance and of its effect on the innocent party ”. 68Chief Justice Gleeson in ACCC v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 51 at paragraph [14] said that, “ Unconscientious exploitation of another’s inability, or diminished ability, to conserve his or her own interests is not to be conf…
Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd
[1998] HCA 48
Citation 3
…nciples enunciated by the High Court in Yerkey v Jones (1939) 63 CLR 649 and reaffirmed in Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395. 77The following matters must be established by Ms Alexopoulos if the Court is to set aside the transaction: a.the “ purport and effect ” of the transaction was not unders…
Vadasz v Pioneer Concrete (SA) Pty Ltd
[1995] HCA 14
Citation 4
…arranted benefit at the expense of the other ” (see the statements of the High Court in Vadasz v. Pioneer Concrete SA Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 14 at paragraphs 21 and 28). 57The second proposition, that this could only be done if Westpac were a party to this proceeding, was disputed. The defendants contended that “ th…
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
[1983] HCA 14
Citation 5
…63 Unconscionability: In Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 (“Amadio ”), Deane J at page 474 said, “ The jurisdiction is long established as extending generally to circumstances in which (i) a party to a transaction was under a special disability in dealing with the other party with the cons…
Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Abdul
[2012] VSC 222
Citation 6
(Para 51)
…(see Bank of Western Australia v Abdul [2012] VSC 222 per Croft J at [51]). 78For the reasons I have already expressed, I consider that Ms Alexopoulos understood the “ purport and effect ” of the transaction. She demanded explanations from her husband. I am not satisfied that he was unable to explain the effect o…