Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, a case involving asset-based lending, a finding of unconscionable conduct at trial, a reversal on intermediate appeal and, ultimately, a decision by the High Court to uphold the trial judgment, provides some valuable lessons for those involved in consumer lending. The case also features a number of clear developments in the law of unconscionable conduct, even if incremental, which are capable of applying to a variety of situations.

The Australian Consumer Law contains provisions prohibiting unconscionable conduct in the course of trade or commerce. Chief amongst those are sections 20 and 21. In Good Living Company Pty Ltd as trustee for the Warren Duncan Trust No 3 v Kingsmede Pty Ltd (Good Living Company) [2021] FCAFC 33, the Full Court of the Federal Court described not only the principles relating to unconscionable conduct generally but also the different approaches to determining contraventions of sections 20 and 21.

The Victorian Court of Appeal last week handed down its judgment in Doggett v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] VSCA 351, a case which bears significant implications for the lending industry and which helps to answer the question, 'What does it take to be a diligent and prudent banker?'.