Background

A lender took action to recover a debt of $430,000 which in three years had grown to $3.61m, due to the impact of fees, and interest of $3.18m.

The borrowers disputed the amount of the debt. They said that a compounding monthly interest rate of 70.72% per annum was excessive, and amounted to a penalty.  They also claimed that the loan agreement was unenforceable due to misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of the Lender, and that it an unjust contract under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).

The loan agreement adopted an interest rate structure which is typical of non-bank lenders: a specified “Higher Rate” (in this case, 1.36% per week), which reduced to a “Lower Rate” (in this case 0.35% per week) if paid on time.

The “Missing” expert

The Court noted that there was no expert evidence provided by either party as to whether the Higher Rate was “excessive or even unusual in the context of a short term financing by way of a second mortgage.”

Outcome

In Commercial N Pty Limited v Huang & Ors [2024] NSWSC 23, the New South Wales Supreme Court held that:

• Higher Rate – Lower Rate mechanisms had been subject to judicial review on many occasions, and the position was well-established: if drafting made it clear that a Lower Rate was a discount for timely payment then a such a mechanism could not of itself amount to a penalty.
• The Higher Rate of 70.72% per annum was “very high” relative to the lower interest rate and “seemingly extravagant” – but there was no expert evidence on the point, and the rate was within the range of rates accepted by the Court in other matters.
• Although the Higher Rate was not of itself unconscionable, monthly compounding at that Rate was “inherently oppressive and unconscionable” because it equated to an “utterly crushing” effective annual rate of interest of about 417% per annum.
• The Lender took no steps to highlight the effect of the compounding rate to the Borrowers other than to refer to “a lengthy set of interest provisions” which included a formula “attended by a degree of ambiguity,” and was aware that they may need to sell their home to repay the loan.
• In the circumstances, the Lender’s conduct was “irreconcilable with what is right and reasonable” and involved “a level of sharp practice and unfairness that [was] unconscionable”

The Borrowers were successful in obtaining orders removing the compounding regime from the loan contract, which reduced the interest charge by almost $2m.

Comment

This case pre-dates the 9 November 2023 amendments to the Unfair Contracts legislation (discussed here), which shifts the burden of proof to lenders.  There may well have been a different outcome under the now current regime.