Wayne V Clayton Case
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Court and Year
Full High Court 2007
District Court of Queensland 2010
New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011
Relevant Facts
Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000
Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments
After substantial period of default, banks sells sold property at auction for $150000.
After deduction of sale, Bank seeks payment of the guarantor
Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges the advisor misled her to its contents …show more content…
Failing to consider binding authority may mean a decision is per incuriam. However in both cases, it focuses on the fact that transaction of the amount was based on an act of persuasion or some amount of force used to overcome the free will and judgement of another. In Bundaberg Bank v Clayton, the case according to Chief Justice Perth and Justice Mackay was based on unconscionable conduct where it knowingly took advantage of Ms Clayton’s poor understanding of the document which detailed her obligations as a guarantor. In Wayne v Kyle, according to Justice Smith, the gift was made in unconscionable circumstances where Ms Kyle deliberately created a false atmosphere of crisis in which Mr Wayne believed he would lose Ms Kyle if he did not provide her with the money she needed. The effect of this false atmosphere of crisis on his mind and free will is sufficient to render the gift void. If decision was distinguished, the District Court of Queensland’s decision would not be per
Case 2
Case 3
Court and Year
Full High Court 2007
District Court of Queensland 2010
New South Wales Court of Appeal 2011
Relevant Facts
Home purchased at $250000 with mortgage payment of $200000
Ms Clayton unable to keep up with payments
After substantial period of default, banks sells sold property at auction for $150000.
After deduction of sale, Bank seeks payment of the guarantor
Ms Clayton claim guarantee not enforceable on her because of misunderstanding Ms Clayton alleges the advisor misled her to its contents …show more content…
Failing to consider binding authority may mean a decision is per incuriam. However in both cases, it focuses on the fact that transaction of the amount was based on an act of persuasion or some amount of force used to overcome the free will and judgement of another. In Bundaberg Bank v Clayton, the case according to Chief Justice Perth and Justice Mackay was based on unconscionable conduct where it knowingly took advantage of Ms Clayton’s poor understanding of the document which detailed her obligations as a guarantor. In Wayne v Kyle, according to Justice Smith, the gift was made in unconscionable circumstances where Ms Kyle deliberately created a false atmosphere of crisis in which Mr Wayne believed he would lose Ms Kyle if he did not provide her with the money she needed. The effect of this false atmosphere of crisis on his mind and free will is sufficient to render the gift void. If decision was distinguished, the District Court of Queensland’s decision would not be per