Haskew v Equity Trustees Executors and Agency Company Limited

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.