## Facts

- Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd (the plaintiff) entered into a loan agreement with Marden (the defendant), secured by a mortgage on the plaintiff's property.
- The agreement specified a high interest rate that was substantially above prevailing market rates.
- The plaintiff challenged the enforceability of the interest clause, alleging it was unconscionable and oppressive.
- The defendant argued the terms had been freely negotiated and reflected the commercial realities of the transaction.
- At first instance, the court found in favour of the defendant, concluding that the interest rate was not unconscionable.
- The plaintiff appealed, prompting a detailed Court of Appeal analysis regarding unconscionable conduct and contractual fairness.

## Issues

1. Whether the high interest rate stipulated in the loan agreement was unconscionable or contrary to public policy.
2. Whether courts should intervene in commercial contracts freely entered into by parties, especially in the absence of evidence of undue influence, coercion, or imbalance of bargaining power.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld the original decision, finding that the loan's high interest rate was not unconscionable in the circumstances.
- It was determined that both parties had voluntarily and knowingly entered into the agreement; there was no suggestion of undue influence or coercion.
- The court emphasized that high interest rates alone do not constitute unconscionability.
- The absence of evidence showing exploitation, coercion, or a significant imbalance in bargaining power led the court to decline interference with the contract.
- Judicial intervention is only justified where there is clear evidence of unconscionable conduct or a breach of public policy.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of unconscionability allows courts to refuse enforcement of excessively unfair or oppressive contractual terms, focusing on factors like bargaining power, transparency, voluntariness, and the commercial context.
- Freely negotiated commercial agreements, even with harsh or onerous terms, are generally upheld unless there is actual evidence of exploitation or unfair dealing.
- The court will not lightly overturn a contract based solely on the severity of its terms, reaffirming the principle of party autonomy.
- Judicial oversight is limited to circumstances where clear inequity, coercion, or a breach of good faith is demonstrated.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal clarified that high interest rates do not, by themselves, render a contract unconscionable if both parties voluntarily and knowledgeably entered the agreement; courts will not intervene in commercial contracts absent clear evidence of unfairness or abuse.

Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd v Marden [1979] 2 All ER 489 (CA)