Perpetual v Onesemo [2010] NSWSC 43

In this case the borrower sought to escape from a mortgage by arguing that it was unjust under the Contracts Review Act. The borrower also cross-claimed against the broker alleging false, fraudulent and misleading conduct by the broker, which included:

  1. representing that the borrower earned $74,234, when in fact he earned $46,800 per year;
  2. representing that the borrower worked for Trans Oz Asia Pty Ltd which he did not;
  3. representing that the borrower had received a gift of $50,000;
  4. providing two false payslips;
  5. providing a false ATO PAYG payment summary.

The lender argued that the Contracts Review Act allegations should be struck out because the borrower failed to allege the lender was aware of the fraudulent conduct by the broker. The court rejected this argument noting that the contract could still be unjust even if the lender was not aware and had merely failed to check the details (which incidentally was what the borrower had pleaded against the lender).

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top