Freeman v Brown

Freeman v Brown involved a dispute over the sale of a property, where the plaintiff sought to set aside the sale due to alleged undue influence and unconscionable dealing by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who had a significant intellectual impairment, social dysfunction, and alcoholism, was induced to sell the property to the defendant under circumstances that were unconscionable.

The court was required to determine whether the transaction was affected by undue influence or unconscionable conduct, and if so, whether the court should intervene despite the presence of adequate consideration and the plaintiff's apparent consent. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedy, including whether the gain realised by the defendant should be restored to the plaintiff.

The court found that the transaction was indeed unconscionable due to the plaintiff's significant intellectual impairment, social dysfunction, and alcoholism, which the defendant was aware of. The court held that equity could intervene to set aside the transaction even though the plaintiff had given consent and the consideration was adequate. The court further held that the gain realised by the defendant must be restored to the plaintiff, with certain counter-balancing benefits and detriments left where they fall. The court declined to consider statutory remedies for harsh and unconscionable contracts, finding that the transaction did not meet the relevant statutory criteria.

The court ordered that the sale of the property be set aside, and that the defendant return the purchase price to the plaintiff. The court also ordered that certain costs be borne by the defendant.