Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 MARCH 2022

Unconscionability in asset-based lending - lessons from Stubbings v Jams

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable.

AustraliaFinance and Banking

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.

In this Insight we discuss the decision and lessons for lenders and borrowers alike.

Background

ABL is the practice of providing credit based solely on an assessment of the value of assets acting as security for the loan, with no consideration of a borrower's capacity to repay the loans through income or other assets.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

    Lawyers Weekly Law firm of the year 2021                  
Employer of Choice for Gender Equality (WGEA)

See more popular content from