Hanna v Raoul

Case [2018] NSWCA 201

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Hanna v Raoul [2018] NSWCA 201
Hearing dates: 22, 23 May 2018
Decision date: 13 September 2018
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [160];
White JA at [163]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: CONTRACTS – agreement to transfer respondent’s property to appellant subject to life estate in favour of respondent – whether respondent had capacity to enter into agreement – whether agreement was unconscionable – whether agreement was unjust
Legislation Cited: Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), ss 4, 7, 9
Cases Cited: Aboody v Ryan (2012) 17 BPR 32,359; [2012] NSWCA 395
Attorney General (NSW) v World Best Holdings Ltd (2005) 63 NSWLR 557; [2005] NSWCA 261
Benson v Rational Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 148
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362; [1956] HCA 81
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457; [1998] HCA 66
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14
David v David [2009] NSWCA 8
Diprose v Louth (No 2) (1990) 54 SASR 450
Dominic v Riz [2009] NSWCA 216
Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423; [1954] HCA 17
Guthrie v Spence (2009) 78 NSWLR 225; [2009] NSWCA 369
Huguenin v Basely (1807) 14 Ves Jun 273
Johnson v Smith [2010] NSWCA 306
Jones v Moss [2007] NSWSC 969
Miwa Pty Ltd v Siantan Properties Pte Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 344
Powell v Powell [1900] 1 Ch 243
Provident Capital Ltd v Papa (2013) 84 NSWLR 231; [2013] NSWCA 36
Public Trustee (WA) v Brumar Nominees Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 161
Ryan v Aboody [2012] NSWSC 136
Treloar Constructions Pty Ltd v McMillan (No 2) [2017] NSWCA 146
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: George Hanna (Appellant)
Gratien Raoul (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
L Ellison SC; V Culkoff (Appellant)
I D Faulkner SC; D D Knoll (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Julie A Orsini (Appellant)
Konstan Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/331772
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:
Raoul (by his tutor Karamihas) v Hanna [2017] NSWSC 728
Date of Decision:
28 June 2017
Before:
Lindsay J
File Number(s):
2015/120549

Headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The respondent was the registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple of land subject to a mortgage, which had been entered into when Mr Raoul obtained a loan to assist a friend. In August 2014, the respondent received a letter of default from the mortgagee. The respondent showed the letter to the appellant, the respondent’s nephew, and told him that if he discharged the mortgage, the respondent would transfer the property to him. In September 2014, the appellant and the respondent met with the appellant’s solicitor. The solicitor prepared a deed of arrangement (the Deed), which provided that the appellant would discharge the mortgage and the respondent would transfer his property to the appellant, subject to a…

Continue reading Hanna v Raoul

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hanna v Raoul [2018] NSWCA 201
Case
[2018] NSWCA 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an agreement for the transfer of the respondent's property to the appellant, subject to a life estate reserved for the respondent. The central dispute revolved around the respondent's capacity to enter into this agreement, the alleged unconscionability of the terms, and whether the agreement was unjust.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the respondent possessed the requisite legal capacity to execute the agreement at the time it was made. Further, the court had to consider whether the agreement was unconscionable, meaning it was entered into under circumstances that were unfair or oppressive, and whether, in all the circumstances, the agreement was unjust.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had the necessary capacity to enter into the agreement. The judges reasoned that the evidence did not support a finding of unconscionability or injustice. The terms of the agreement, including the reservation of a life estate, were considered by the court to be reasonable in the context of the transaction.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.