CASE NOTES - KS v Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd (No 5) [2026] ACTSC 10

Parties The first plaintiff, KS (a woman with a long history of serious mental illness including schizophrenia, OCD and PTSD, suing by a litigation guardian), and the second plaintiff, Nusage Pty Ltd (a company KS incorporated as trustee for the Nusage Trust), brought proceedings against Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd (Prime), a private non-bank lender.

Background Facts In July 2021, Nusage entered into an $850,000 loan agreement with Prime to fund KS's purchase of a residential property in Ainslie, ACT. The loan was structured as a "business loan" to Nusage as corporate borrower, with KS as guarantor. In reality, the property was to be owner-occupied. KS was a disability pensioner with no business income and was under acute financial pressure, having received a notice to complete the purchase contract and facing imminent loss of her $83,000 deposit.

The loan was arranged through broker Tony Taneski, who earned an $18,700 facilitation fee built into the loan. Prime dealt exclusively through the broker and had no direct contact with KS. The loan carried significant fees on entry and, upon default, a higher interest rate of 1.5% per month, large administration and legal fees, and a Capital Reserve Fee of 3%. The interest rate was also variable under a buried contractual clause, even though the loan was not disclosed as variable. KS defaulted, Prime obtained possession of the Ainslie Property and sold it as mortgagee. Even after the sale proceeds were received in February 2025, the loan account remained substantially in deficit due to accrued fees and interest.

Issues The court considered three issues: (1) whether KS was a "debtor" under the National Credit Code so that its protections applied; (2) whether Prime engaged in unconscionable conduct in equity; and (3) whether Prime engaged in statutory unconscionable conduct under s 12CB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act).

Decision

National Credit Code — KS not a "debtor": Mossop J held that KS was a guarantor, not a debtor, for the purposes of the Code. Although clause 14.5 of the loan deed described each obligor's liability as that of a "principal debtor," the overall structure of the agreement maintained a clear distinction between borrower and guarantor. The clause operated only to prevent defences arising from indulgence being granted to the borrower, and could not elevate KS to the status of a debtor ab initio.

Equitable unconscionability — not established: The court found that KS was under a special disadvantage arising from her distorted thinking about property and overwhelming anxiety about housing. However, Prime had no knowledge of her psychiatric conditions. It dealt only through the broker, and the broker's knowledge could not be imputed to Prime. Financial pressure alone does not constitute a special disadvantage known to the lender. The equitable claim therefore failed.

Statutory unconscionability — established: Applying the reasoning of Gordon J in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, Mossop J found that Prime's system of lending was unconscionable within the meaning of s 12CB. The system was designed to insulate Prime from knowledge of borrowers' circumstances by dealing exclusively through brokers who had strong financial incentives to place loans. Prime made no assessment of whether borrowers were appropriate candidates for its product, took no steps to verify income, permitted double-counting of income, facilitated the artificial interposition of corporate borrowers to avoid the Code, and offered a loan product with onerous terms that were likely to prove ruinous upon default. The system amounted to a deliberate strategy to immunise Prime from knowledge that would otherwise attract equitable or statutory intervention — conduct found to be outside societal norms of acceptable commercial behaviour.

Relief The Loan Agreement was declared invalid, unenforceable and set aside. The court determined that only the principal advanced, plus interest at the court rate (pursuant to the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT)), was repayable by the plaintiffs. On the calculations proposed, the net sale proceeds received by Prime in February 2025 exceeded the amount properly owing, resulting in a surplus payable to the plaintiffs. Prime was ordered to pay that amount into court (with the precise figure to be calculated and final orders made on 12 February 2026) and to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

当事方 第一原告 KS（因患有严重精神疾病，由诉讼监护人代为起诉，其病史包括精神分裂症、强迫症及创伤后应激障碍），第二原告 Nusage Pty Ltd（KS 作为 Nusage 信托受托人而设立的公司），共同起诉被告 Prime Capital Securities Pty Ltd（Prime），一家私人非银行贷款机构。

案件背景 2021年7月，Nusage 与 Prime 签订了一份价值85万澳元的贷款协议，用于资助 KS 购买位于澳大利亚首都领地艾恩斯利（Ainslie）的一处住宅物业。该贷款以 Nusage 作为企业借款人的"商业贷款"形式构建，KS 作为担保人。而实际上，该物业拟供 KS 自住。KS 仅依靠残疾人支持养老金为生，没有任何商业收入，且正承受极大的财务压力——她已收到购房合同的完成通知，面临失去8.3万澳元定金的迫切风险。

该贷款由经纪人 Tony Taneski 安排，其赚取的1.87万澳元中介费已内置于贷款之中。Prime 完全通过经纪人处理业务，与 KS 没有任何直接联系。该贷款在签订时收取高额费用，一旦违约，将适用每月1.5%的更高利率，以及高额管理费、法律费用和3%的资本准备金费用。此外，贷款合同中还有一项隐藏条款允许贷款利率浮动，尽管该贷款从未被披露为浮动利率贷款。KS 最终违约，Prime 取得艾恩斯利物业的占有权并以抵押权人身份将其出售。即便在2025年2月收到出售所得款项后，由于累计产生的费用和利息，贷款账户仍存在大量赤字。

争议焦点 法院审查了三项问题：（1）KS 是否属于《国家信用法典》（National Credit Code）意义下的"债务人"，从而享有该法典的保护；（2）Prime 是否在衡平法上构成不公正行为；（3）Prime 是否违反《2001年澳大利亚证券和投资委员会法》（ASIC Act）第12CB条，实施了与金融服务相关的法定不公正行为。

裁决

《国家信用法典》——KS 非"债务人"： Mossop 法官裁定，就该法典而言，KS 的身份为担保人而非债务人。尽管贷款合同第14.5条将每位义务人的责任描述为"主债务人"的责任，但协议的整体结构清晰地维持了借款人与担保人之间的区别。该条款的作用仅在于防止因向借款人给予宽限而产生的抗辩，不能将 KS 的地位自始（ab initio）提升为债务人。因此，衡平法上的主张未能成立。

衡平法上的不公正行为——不成立： 法院认定，由于 KS 对房产存在扭曲的认知以及对住房问题的极度焦虑，她处于特殊不利地位。然而，Prime 对其精神状况并不知情。Prime 仅通过经纪人处理业务，经纪人的知情状况不能归责于 Prime。单纯的财务压力本身不构成贷款方已知的特殊不利地位。因此，衡平法上的主张未能成立。

法定不公正行为——成立： 法院援引高等法院在 Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6 一案中 Gordon 法官的推理，认定 Prime 的贷款体系违反了 ASIC Act 第12CB条。该体系通过完全依赖经纪人与借款人接触，刻意将自身与借款人的实际情况隔离开来，而这些经纪人在促成贷款方面具有强烈的经济利益。Prime 未对借款人是否适合其产品进行任何评估，未采取措施核实收入，允许重复计算收入，协助借款人以人为插入企业借款人的方式规避法典保护，并提供了一款条款苛刻、一旦违约便可能造成重大损失的贷款产品。该体系构成一种蓄意策略，旨在使 Prime 免于获取可能引发衡平法或法定干预的相关知识——此类行为被认定为超出社会可接受的商业行为规范。

救济 贷款协议被宣告无效、不可执行，并予以撤销。法院裁定，原告仅须偿还所借本金，以及按照《2006年法院程序规则》（澳大利亚首都领地）规定的法院利率计算的利息。根据计算，Prime 于2025年2月收到的净销售所得超过应收金额，产生了应返还给原告的结余款项。Prime 被命令将该款项（具体金额待计算后于2026年2月12日作出最终命令）缴入法院，并承担原告的诉讼费用。