In this case the borrower filed a Contracts Review Act defence. Although the borrowers defence was phrased in pidgin English the evidence showed that they were sophisticated business people and that the loans were entered into for the purposes of business, accordingly the Contracts Review Act did not apply:
I am satisfied that, at the time when the loan agreements and subsequent mortgages were entered into in 2008, each of the Defendants was engaged in the business of owning valuable commercial premises which were leased out for rental return. They did so in person and not through a company. The evidence reveals that each Defendant was engaged in such a business with respect to different premises, in different locations, being conducted for different purposes. The purpose of each Defendant engaging in this business was to rent the premises for profit. The Darlinghurst property operated as a restaurant. The Leichhardt property operated as a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business.
This finding meant that the lender succeeded in its application for summary judgment. His Honour also expressed the view that given the evidence of the sophistication of the borrowers, and the fact their only complaint was in relation to the 2% higher rate, he would have granted summary judgment on the Contracts Review Act defence in any event.