Haskew v Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Company Limited - [1919] HCA 53

27 CLR 231

THE EQUITY TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS AND

AGENCY COMPANY LIMITED

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Gift-Rescission-Undue influence-Independent advice.

Where it is sought to set aside a gift on the ground that it has been obtained by undue influence exerted by the donee, under whose control and dependent upon whom the donor was, there is no rule of law which absolutely requires that in order to support the gift the donor must have had independent advice.

So held by Isaacs and Rich JJ. Kali Bakhsh Singh v. Ram Gopal Singh, L.R. 41 Ind. App., 23; 30 T.L.R., 138; I.L.R., 36 All., 80, followed.

Spong v. Spong, 18 C.L.R., 544, explained. In an action seeking to set aside certain transactions in the nature of gifts on the ground of undue influence exerted upon the donor by the donee,

Held, upon the evidence, that undue influence had been established, and that the transactions were properly set aside.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Cussen J.): Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. v. Haskew, (1918) V.L.R., 571; 40 A.L.T., 80, affirmed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

An action was brought by William Dutton against his daughter, Mary Elizabeth Haskew, in which the plaintiff alleged that the

27 CLR 232

defendant and her son, James Haskew, by undue influence, pro-

cured the plaintiff to execute certain documents and to transfer to the defendant a large amount of property and assets, and claimed EQUITY

a declaration that such documents were void, delivery up and TRUSTEES,

cancellation of such of the documents as were in the possession of

AGENCY the defendant, an order that the defendant do all necessary acts

and things to revest in the plaintiff the property or assets transferred or placed in the defendant's control, accounts of the proceeds of any of the said property or assets sold or disposed of by the defen- dant, all necessary accounts and inquiries, payment of the amount found due to the plaintiff on the taking of such accounts, and an injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing in any way with the said property or assets. The plaintiff also claimed as moneys had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff certain specified sums of money. Shortly after the bringing of the action the plaintiff died, and the action was thereafter continued by his executor, the Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co. Ltd.

The action was heard by Cussen J., who found that the execution of the documents in question by Dutton was procured by undue influence exerted over him by the defendant, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff substantially as asked: Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. v. Haskew 1. In stating his reasons for judgment the learned Judge stated it to be a principle of law that " where a person weak through age or other causes is entirely under the control of and dependent upon another or others, no considerable gift…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Haskew v Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Company Limite...

Details

AGLC: Haskew v Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Co Ltd [1919] HCA 53
Case: [1919] HCA 53
Decision Date: 15 October 1919

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a dispute over gifts of property. The original action was brought by William Dutton against his daughter, Mary Elizabeth Haskew, alleging that she and her son had procured him to transfer a substantial amount of property and assets through undue influence. Following Mr. Dutton's death, the action was continued by his executor, Equity Trustees, Executors and Agency Company Limited. The Supreme Court had found that undue influence was established and set aside the transactions.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the transactions were procured by undue influence, and importantly, whether a rule of law existed requiring independent advice for a gift to be upheld when the donor is under the control of and dependent upon the donee. The appellant argued that the relationship of father and child did not automatically create a presumption of undue influence and that no such rule mandating independent advice existed. The respondent contended that the evidence supported the finding of undue influence and a relationship of confidence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. While Barton J. noted that the relationship between the father and daughter did not, in itself, raise a presumption of undue influence, he found ample affirmative evidence of undue influence, agreeing with the trial judge's conclusion. Isaacs J. elaborated on the importance of the issue of independent advice, clarifying that the Court's previous decision in *Spong v. Spong* did not establish a general rule of law that independent advice is always requisite. He referred to Privy Council decisions, emphasizing that the core question is whether the donor acted of their own free will and with comprehension, with independent advice being a subsidiary factor that can assist in determining this ultimate issue. Rich J. concurred, stating that the principle of equity applies to all cases of acquired and abused influence and betrayed confidence, whether presumed or proven extrinsically.

The appeal was dismissed without costs. The Court ordered that all moneys and securities held by the appellant or her solicitor be delivered to the respondent.

Orders