Daunt v Daunt

Case [2015] VSCA 58


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2014 0010

STEPHEN LEWIS DAUNT Appellant
v
MICHAEL TELFORD DAUNT Respondent

---

JUDGES: REDLICH, SANTAMARIA & KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 19 February 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24 April 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2015] VSCA 58 1st Revision: 27 April 2015, par [34]
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: Daunt v Daunt [2013] VSC 706 (Daly AsJ)

---

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST – Transfer of land from parent to adult child – Whether transferor was under a special disability or disadvantage that made her vulnerable – Whether transferor understood the implications of the transfer – Whether transferee exerted undue influence or engaged in unconscionable conduct – Standing of disappointed contingent beneficiary to challenge validity of transfer – Whether by elderly parents’ vulnerability and reliance upon adult child a fiduciary duty was established.

EVIDENCE – Whether determination of VCAT refusing appellant’s application to appoint an administrator admissible – Evidence Act 2008 s 91 – Evidence Act 2008 s 178 inapplicable in absence of certificate.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellant Mr MNC Harvey with
Dr K Weston-Scheuber
Barristers Duty Scheme
For the Respondent Dr G Moore Paul Maginn Lawyer

REDLICH JA
SANTAMARIA JA
KYROU JA:

Introduction

  1. In 2010, Mr Edward Daunt (‘Mr Daunt’) and his wife Mrs Valerie Daunt (‘Mrs Daunt’) were the registered proprietors of a property known as 95 Junction Road, Heathcote Junction, Wandong (‘property’). 

  2. Mr and Mrs Daunt had three children: Stephen Daunt (‘Stephen’) (who is the appellant), Michael Daunt (‘Michael’) (who is the respondent) and Helen Rodgers (‘Helen’).  Stephen and Michael are identical twins.

  3. The relationship between Mr and Mrs Daunt and Stephen and Helen was strained, as was the relationship between Michael, on the one hand, and Stephen and Helen on the other.  It also seems that Michael was the primary carer for his parents.  During 2010, it appears that Mrs Daunt’s access to a pension was affected by her joint ownership of the property. 

  4. On 16 June 2010, Mr and Mrs Daunt executed a transfer of the Wandong property in favour of Michael and Mr Daunt (‘the transfer’). 

  5. On 6 October 2011, Stephen lodged a caveat on the title to the Wandong property. 

  6. On 26 October 2011, Mr Daunt died.  He was survived by Mrs Daunt.

  7. Had the transfer not occurred, Mrs Daunt would have succeeded to sole proprietorship of the Wandong property by right of survivorship.  By reason of the transfer and the later death of his father, Michael succeeded to the sole proprietorship of the property by right of survivorship.

  8. On 22 May 2012, Michael was registered as the sole proprietor of the property by right of survivorship.

  9. In response to the caveat lodged, Michael made an application to Land Victoria pursuant to s 89A(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 for the removal of the caveat.[1]

    [1]Section 89A(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 provides: ‘Subject to the provisions of this section, where a recording of a caveat (not being a…

Continue reading Daunt v Daunt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Daunt v Daunt [2015] VSCA 58
Case
[2015] VSCA 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daunt v Daunt involved a legal dispute between Stephen Daunt and Michael Daunt over the transfer of land from Mrs Daunt, their mother, to Michael. Stephen, as the disappointed contingent beneficiary, challenged the validity of the transfer, claiming undue influence or unconscionable conduct by Michael. The dispute centred on whether Mrs Daunt was under a special disability or disadvantage that made her vulnerable and whether she understood the implications of the transfer. Additionally, Stephen argued that Michael’s actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty due to his parents’ vulnerability and reliance on him.

The court had to determine whether the transfer of land from Mrs Daunt to Michael was valid and whether any undue influence or unconscionable conduct had occurred. The court also needed to assess if Mrs Daunt was under a special disability or disadvantage and if she understood the implications of the transfer. Furthermore, the court examined whether Michael's actions constituted a breach of fiduciary duty and if the evidence of the VCAT determination was admissible under the Evidence Act 2008.

The court found that Stephen had not demonstrated any undue influence or unconscionable conduct by Michael. The evidence presented did not substantiate Mrs Daunt's inability to understand the transfer's implications or Michael's undue influence over his parents. The court also ruled that the evidence from VCAT was inadmissible as it lacked the necessary certificate under the Evidence Act 2008. Consequently, Stephen's appeal was dismissed, and the transfer of land from Mrs Daunt to Michael was upheld.

The court's final order was to dismiss Stephen's appeal and uphold the transfer of land from Mrs Daunt to Michael. The court found no evidence of undue influence or unconscionable conduct by Michael and ruled that the VCAT evidence was inadmissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Stephen has appealed against the dismissal of his claim. For the reasons that follow, in our opinion, the appeal should be dismissed.The evidence At trial, Stephen relied on several affidavits which were affirmed respectively on the following dates: (1) 27 February 2013, (2) 7 May 2013, (3) 30 May 2013, (4) 26 August 2013, (5) 29 August 2013 and (6) 30 August 2013. In large part, his affidavits simply expressed the submissions that he wished to make. Michael relied upon his own affidavits sworn 20 March 2013 and 5 June 2013, affidavits sworn by Mrs Daunt on 20 March 2013 and on 22 March 2013, an affidavit of Joy Lorraine Carbone sworn 23 March 2013 and an affidavit sworn by his solicitor on 15 April 2013. Stephen did not cross-examine Michael or any of the witnesses called by him. In part, the evidence comprised documents that were brought into existence before the transfer; in part, it comprised correspondence that had passed between the adult children of Mr and Mrs Daunt in the period between 14 October 2009 and 12 June 2010. The correspondence Not all of the correspondence between the adult children was available on the hearing of the appeal; however, it had been summarised by the trial judge. While no issue was taken as to the accuracy of her summary, it was contended that she had failed to draw the correct inferences from parts of the correspondence and had given the wrong weight to other parts of it. At the appeal, counsel for Stephen paid particular attention to two letters sent to Stephen by Michael. The full text of those letters will be integrated with the summary given of the other correspondence by the trial judge. The trial judge said:The letters provided to the Court are illustrative of the circumstances leading up to the execution of the Transfer of Land on 16 June 2010. What can be gleaned from the contents of the letters is as follows:(a)by October 2009, [Michael] was concerned about some works which were required to be undertaken at the Wandong property in preparation for the forthcoming fire season (it appears that the property was under threat during the Black Saturday bushfires); In a letter of 23 October 2009, Michael wrote (the emphasis is in the original):Dear Stephen,Registered mail is an accepted part of documenting correspondence. My intention is to avoid confusion in my future activities as the person appointed to holding Enduring Power of Attorney for our parents.I will try to clarify what I understand of your letter of the 19th of Oct 09. 1. You don’t wish to help because you don’t want to be exploited by me, Mum and Dad or the ‘indifferent’ Rogers. By this I gather you are not feeling naturally drawn to giving time and energy to Mum and Dad.2. You say the house is insured so the Fire Season is not a problem. From this statement I gather you do not want to give your time to cleaning up the fire risks that surround the house. You have no concern for the contents of the house.3. You say the improvements I suggest are not necessarily going to add much to the eventual market value of the property. From this statement I gather you don’t wish to do any work on the property.4. You state, ‘I am prepared to act in “our parents” interest if you are absent. There is no role for me at present’. I AM offering to be absent. If Mum and Dad are in agreement, you can collect their mail, pay bills and be a taxi driver and an errand person. You can accompany Mum and Dad to their difficult appointments and sit with them in waiting rooms. You can do the paper work with the clinics and Medicare. You can be accountable to the Hostel, the Doctors, the hospitals and Government. You can have the enjoyment of taking them on outings to the shops and local parks etc. You can attend to their health challenges and research medical matters. You can take over maintenance of the property. You can be available for consultations with the Hostel and doctors if there is an emergency. I am not speculating. All the above things are what I am dealing with right now. Will you commit to the above activities if I go back to Mylestom? This is not an ultimatum; it is a process of getting clear communication with you.5. Contrary to your speculation, I won’t be abandoning my role; I will just be taking time out if you can help. I will continue my daily phone contact with Mum and Dad.6. If you take time to understand Mum and Dad’s situation it will become evident to you that you won’t be ‘assuming control and solving problems in your own way.’ Mum and Dad are still in control. The Hostel has its own rules you will need to fit in with. Dad is the boss accountant. We have set up Internet banking facilities. Mum and Dad both have bankcards and can see their accounts any time they wish.7. You say ‘it would be better to extract something of value now than wait for some uncertain event.’ Better for whom? Our parents’ pensions and their eligibility for it and other Government assistance would be significantly diminished by the premature sale of the property. As well, their accommodation fees would be increased. Mitchell Shire Council has devalued their property by a third. The fires of last February have caused a slump in land values.From your above statement I gather you don’t mind getting a poor return on the sale of the property. It appears you haven’t factored in Mum and Dad’s financial security through the current Global Economic Crisis. Yes I am well researched. You could be too. The Internet is excellent. Government departments are very helpful.8. In reference to your statements about normal relations: I have separated myself from you because I am troubled by you. It is my problem. I am sorting it out in my own way. Whether you help or not, certain work has to be done. I am not demanding anything of you. You are being kept informed.I hope I have interpreted your letter, of October 19th 2009, accurately.[5][5]Counsel for Stephen said that this was one of five documents which demonstrated either Mrs Daunt’s inability to understand what was involved in the transfer or of Michael’s undue influence over his parents.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.