Citigroup v Azar [2011] NSWSC 95

The son was an accredited broker with the lender. The parents borrowed funds to refinance an existing loan and to give money to the son. The parents claimed they were elderly, on a pension and had very little education. They did not know or understand what they were signing. They pleaded their case as non est factum (not my deed) as well as on the grounds it was Unjust and Unconscionable).

Justice Barr did not accept the parents story because they had a long history of borrowings and were quite lucid and experienced. The Judge concluded:

I think that the most acceptable explanation of this series of events is that the defendants were prepared to raise money to lend to their family from time to time on the security of their house. One of the terms of those arrangements was that the family member would service the loan.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top