Beckley v CTTT [2009] NSWSC 703

A single mother on welfare took a loan for, what the court found, was non-business purposes. However she signed a declaration indicating it was for business purposes. She then sought relief in the Consumer Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT). The CTTT found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The borrower appealed to the Supreme Court which found the CTTT did have jurisdiction and kicked it back to the CTTT for determination. In doing so the court noted:

No reasonable person standing in the credit provider’s shoes would have believed that the majority of the funds were to be used for investment purposes, particularly the buying of shares.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top