Schultz v Bank of Queensland [2015] QCA 19

We previously reported on this case.

A wife sought to set aside her mortgage under the wife’s equity principle and unconscionability. The wife did not give evidence and instead her barrister asked the trial judge to infer that she misunderstood:

  1. Her liability for interest and costs;
  2. The loan amount; and
  3. The fact that she might be made bankrupt.

The wife then sought a stay from the trial judge while she appealed his decision. He refused and so she appealed to the Appeal Court asking it to grant her a stay pending the hearing of her appeal. 

The Appeal Court found that there was other evidence from which such findings could be inferred, namely a statement by the bank that the borrower’s worst case scenario was selling the house, which did not refer to any requirement to pay outstanding interest or costs incurred in selling the house, nor that she might be made bankrupt – a statement that on its face might be taken to be exhaustive. The court found this point to be a good arguable point. 

Accordingly, the Appeal Court granted a stay until the appeal is heard. 

Click here to read the full judgment.

Scroll to Top