It is not uncommon for parents to provide their children with financial assistance by providing personal guarantees or security for any money loaned. With housing prices in NSW continuing to sky rocket, it’s easy to see why.

But the Supreme Court in Alceon Group Pty Ltd v Rose [2015] NSWSC 868 is a warning to lenders, casting doubt on the enforceability of those personal guarantees or security instruments in particular circumstances.

What Was the Problem?

Christopher Rose was the director and secretary of Quadwest Developments Pty Ltd (“Quadwest”). When Quadwest experienced financial difficulties and were unable to repay their loan, Alceon Group Pty Ltd (“Alceon”), a lending institution, agreed to $23,000,000 in funds provided the loan was subject to personal guarantees.

Both Peter and Betty Rose, parents of Christopher Rose, signed personal guarantees limited to $2,000,000 and also to the mortgage of their home to enable their son to continue Quadwest.

Alecon suggested Mr Lennox, a solicitor acting for Quadwest, advise Mr and Mrs Rose of the various documents they were required to sign. Unfortunately, Quadwest defaulted on the loan leaving Alceon to enforce the personal guarantees from Peter and Betty Rose, and their rights under the mortgage.

Both Peter and Betty Rose separately defended the orders sought by Alceon. Peter Rose’s defences included that Alceon should exhaust the assets of Quadwest first before he was found to be liable, and that Alceon were engaging in unconscionable, and misleading and deceptive conduct by first claiming in the early stages of negotiations that they would not require personal guarantees.

Betty Rose pressed several arguments including:

  • She executed the documents under her husband’s ‘undue influence’;
  • Alceon failed to advise her that Quadwest’s finances were in a ‘parlous state’; and
  • Alceon’s conduct was unconscionable, and she was part of an unconscientious bargain.

What Was the Outcome?

The Court rejected the defences raised by Peter Rose, primarily because it was increasingly obvious that the proposed loan was of high risk, and the security that Alceon sought was not unreasonable. Furthermore, Peter Rose knew that Quadwest’s financial position was desperate.

On the other hand, Mrs Rose had several situational factors that negated her liability from Alceon, namely:

  • She had, for 58 years, trusted Peter Rose and left financial decisions for him. Consequently, she did not read the documents and took no notice of what the documents were when she signed them, which was in accordance with her usual practice.
  • She did not benefit from the securitised documents – she was a volunteer in the agreement.
  • She had no appreciation for the magnitude of risk of default in Quadwest, and hence the risk that Alceon would exercise their rights under the mortgage. She did not know that Quadwest were desperate, and no one attempted to convey that information to her.
  • Mr Lennox’s advice was inadequate, making no attempt to explain what the documents she was signing were, or the consequences of signing the documents. Furthermore, since he was acting for Quadwest, he was not ‘independent’.

From the above facts, the Court found that the principles required in Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd [1998] HCA 48 were satisfied and hence the agreement with Mrs Rose was unconscionable.

The Court then considered Alceon should bear the consequence of the unconscionable agreement. Alceon knew that they were obliged to advise Mrs Rose of the documents by a ‘competent, independent and disinterested stranger’. As Alceon advised Christopher Rose to use Mr Lennox to give advice to Mrs Rose, knowing that Mr Lennox was a solicitor for Quadwest and themselves introducing a conflict of interest, it was clear that Alceon had undermined the protection that they had sought to provide for themselves.

The Court ordered that Mr Rose be liable for $2,000,000 plus interest and costs of the plaintiff. Mrs Rose remained in possession of the house’s mortgage.

Key Takeaways

This case presents several takeaway lessons. Firstly, advice should always be independent. Secondly, where a party is inexperienced, or other factors indicate a lack of knowledge, the advice given should be thorough explaining the transaction the party is entering into, whether they understand what they’re signing and the consequences of the transaction. Lastly, parents can be considered as two separate parties with distinct interests, and accordingly they can bring separate claims in proceedings that are even against each other.

COVID-19 Business Survey
LegalVision is conducting a survey on the impact of COVID-19 for businesses across Australia. The survey takes 2 minutes to complete and all responses are anonymous. We would appreciate your input. Take the survey now.

About LegalVision: LegalVision is a tech-driven, full-service commercial law firm that uses technology to deliver a faster, better quality and more cost-effective client experience.

The majority of our clients are LVConnect members. By becoming a member, you can stay ahead of legal issues while staying on top of costs. For just $199 per month, membership unlocks unlimited lawyer consultations, faster turnaround times, free legal templates and members-only discounts.

Learn more about LVConnect

Need Legal Help? Get a Free Fixed-Fee Quote

If you would like to receive a free fixed-fee quote or get in touch with our team, fill out the form below.

Our Awards
  • 2019 Top 25 Startups - LinkedIn 2019 Top 25 Startups - LinkedIn
  • 2019 NewLaw Firm of the Year - Australian Law Awards 2019 NewLaw Firm of the Year - Australian Law Awards
  • 2020 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500 2020 Fastest Growing Law Firm - Financial Times APAC 500
  • 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review 2020 AFR Fast 100 List - Australian Financial Review
  • 2020 Law Firm of the Year Finalist - Australasian Law Awards 2020 Law Firm of the Year Finalist - Australasian Law Awards
  • Most Innovative Law Firm - 2019 Australasian Lawyer 2019 Most Innovative Firm - Australasian Lawyer
Privacy Policy Snapshot

We collect and store information about you. Let us explain why we do this.

What information do you collect?

We collect a range of data about you, including your contact details, legal issues and data on how you use our website.

How do you collect information?

We collect information over the phone, by email and through our website.

What do you do with this information?

We store and use your information to deliver you better legal services. This mostly involves communicating with you, marketing to you and occasionally sharing your information with our partners.

How do I contact you?

You can always see what data you’ve stored with us.

Questions, comments or complaints? Reach out on 1300 544 755 or email us at

View Privacy Policy