Abstract
The High Court of Australia recently delivered its highly anticipated judgment in Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd (2022) 399 ALR 409 (‘Stubbings (HCA)’). The case represents the most recent examination of the unsettled statutory doctrine of unconscionability in the land’s highest judicial forum. Regrettably, the High Court spurned the opportunity to clarify several lingering questions that continue to plague the doctrine. These questions concern matters ranging from the proper distinction between the various unconscionability provisions in the consumer law to the requirements needed under each. This article extrapolates what it can from Stubbings (HCA) and other leading cases to try and add clarity to the frequently litigated but poorly understood statutory unconscionability doctrine.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
