Singh v Ginelle [2010] NSWCA 310

The borrowers filed a defence claiming the loan was unjust under the Consumer Credit Code however they ultimately consented to judgment. The borrowers later sought to set aside the consent judgment, which was refused. They then appealed but the appeal was dismissed because:

  1. Although judgment was entered in their absence it was entered by consent and therefore the rules relating to setting aside consent judgments applied;
  2. The Judge did not error in finding that the borrowers consented to the judgment or understood it.

Another ground of the appeal related to the trial judge refusing to stay the proceedings; declare the agreement as to judgment unconscionable and deceptive; and join the solicitor and barrister for the lender as defendants to the proceedings. That application was dismissed because it was held to be a further agitation of issues already dealt with by the Court and because there was no evidence of misconduct on the part of the legal representatives.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top