MAXWELL v CHITTICK and ORS [1994] NSWCA 196 — BarristerAI

Maxwell v Chittick and ORS

[1994] NSWCA 196

NSW Court of Appeal23 August 1994

More

View on AustLII View on JADE Download

Headnote

No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.

Generate the headnote

Free trial · no card required

Case Details

Citation[1994] NSWCA 196

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNsw

Decision Date23 August 1994

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Start free trial

No card · cancel anytime

Judgment

Subsequent Judicial Consideration6›

Cases that have considered MAXWELL v CHITTICK and ORS

Referred to (6)

[2018] NSWSC 917 HBSY Pty Ltd v Lewis (No 2) [2025] FCAFC 44 Barodawala v Perinparajah [2022] VSCA 198 HBSY Pty Ltd v Lewis [2022] NSWSC 841 [2021] NSWSC 966

Judicial Consideration (Chronological)

[2018] NSWSC 917Referred to

HBSY Pty Ltd v Lewis (No 2) [2025] FCAFC 44Referred to

Barodawala v Perinparajah [2022] VSCA 198Referred to

HBSY Pty Ltd v Lewis [2022] NSWSC 841Referred to

[2021] NSWSC 966Referred to

In the Matter of Auzhair Supplies Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2013] NSWSC 1Referred to

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage

Where a guarantor seeks to set aside a guarantee on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the lender, the guarantor must establish both that they were under a special disadvantage and that the lender knew or ought to have known of that disadvantage.

MAXWELL v CHITTICK and ORS at [30]

Where a party seeks to rely upon an estoppel by convention, the party must demonstrate that the common assumption was shared by both parties and that it would be unconscionable to permit departure from it

Where a party seeks to rely upon an estoppel by convention, the party must demonstrate that the common assumption was shared by both parties and that it would be unconscionable to permit departure from it.

MAXWELL v CHITTICK and ORS at [37]