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
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’).
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.
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.
On 16 June 2010, Mr and Mrs Daunt executed a transfer of the Wandong property in favour of Michael and Mr Daunt (‘the transfer’).
On 6 October 2011, Stephen lodged a caveat on the title to the Wandong property.
On 26 October 2011, Mr Daunt died. He was survived by Mrs Daunt.
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.
On 22 May 2012, Michael was registered as the sole proprietor of the property by right of survivorship.
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
- AGLC
- Daunt v Daunt [2015] VSCA 58
- Case
- [2015] VSCA 58
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.