← All Authorities
Australia unconscionabilityundue influence

Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd

(2004) 216 CLR 388
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2004
StatusBinding authority

Summary

High Court considered unconscionability under TPA ss 51AA and 51AC in the context of a retirement village contract where residents suffered special disability.

Key Principle

unconscionability; retirement village contract; special disability; TPA s 51AA and s 51AC

Area of Law

consumer

Related Cases

Google LLC v ACCC (2021) 391 ALR 346

Google was not liable for misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian consumer law in respect of sponsored search results created and placed by third-party advertisers.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt (2019) 267 CLR 1

HCA held 4:3 that a book-up system with Indigenous customers was not unconscionable under ASIC Act s.12CB; unconscionability requires more than a poor bargain.

ACCC v Valve Corporation (No 3) [2016] FCA 196

Valve Corporation made false representations to Australian consumers that no refund rights existed for Steam game purchases, breaching consumer guarantee provisions of the ACL.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Murphy v Overton Investments P...