Still Jammed! Lingering Questions About the Statutory Unconscionability Doctrine Post Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd (2022) 399 ALR 409

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.