Hastie v Hastie - [2025] QSC 190

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hastie & anor v Hastie & anor [2025] QSC 190

PARTIES:

ALLAN HASTIE

(first plaintiff)
and
JEANETTE FAY HASTIE
(second plaintiff)

v
CRAIG ANDREW HASTIE

(first defendant)
and
KYLIE ELIZABETH HASTIE

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 9844 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27-28 March and 2 April 2025

JUDGE:

Williams J

ORDER:

1. The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed.

2. Within 14 days the parties are to file and serve written submissions in respect of costs, of not more than 3 pages.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – WHERE NO PRESUMPTION ARISES – where the plaintiffs had a mortgage over their property and were struggling to make repayments – where the bank was threatening to foreclose – where the plaintiffs transferred the property to the defendants in exchange for the defendants paying the outstanding mortgage and rates owed – where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants promised that they could remain in the property rent free or the defendants would provide other accommodation to them – where the plaintiffs paid rent to the defendants – whether the transfer of the property was a result of actual undue influence over the plaintiffs – whether the relations between the parties raised a presumption of undue influence

EQUITY – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – GENERALLY - where the plaintiffs had a mortgage over their property and were struggling to make repayments – where the bank was threatening to foreclose – where the plaintiffs transferred the property to the defendants in exchange for the defendants paying the outstanding mortgage and rates owed – where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants promised that they could remain in the property rent free or the defendants would provide other accommodation to them – where the plaintiffs paid rent to the defendants – whether the plaintiffs were suffering from a special disadvantage – whether the defendants unconscientiously took advantage of any condition or circumstance of the plaintiffs

Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281, cited
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362, cited
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14, cited
Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113; [1936] HCA 41, cited
Tulloch (decd) v Braybon (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 650, cited
Union Fidelity Trustee Co of Australia Ltd v Gibson [1971] VR 573, cited

COUNSEL:

M G Larsen for the plaintiffs

A M Laylee for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

De Brenni & Co for the plaintiffs
ACS Legal Solutions for the defendants

The first plaintiff and the second plaintiff are husband and wife, and the first defendant is their son. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and the daughter in law of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are suing the defendants alleging undue influence and unconscionable conduct in…

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 Hastie v Hastie

Details

AGLC: Hastie v Hastie [2025] QSC 190
Case: [2025] QSC 190
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hastie v Hastie involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Hastie, and the defendants, who were their children. The plaintiffs had a mortgage over their property and were struggling to make repayments, with the bank threatening foreclosure. In exchange for the defendants paying the outstanding mortgage and rates owed, the plaintiffs transferred the property to the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants promised they could remain in the property rent-free or that the defendants would provide other accommodation. The plaintiffs paid rent to the defendants. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the transfer of the property was a result of actual undue influence or unconscionability by the defendants.

The legal issues in the case centred on whether the transfer of the property was a result of actual undue influence or unconscionability by the defendants. The plaintiffs needed to prove that the defendants exerted undue influence over them, which could be actual undue influence or a relationship that gave rise to a presumption of undue influence. Alternatively, the plaintiffs needed to show that they were suffering from a special disadvantage and that the defendants unconscientiously took advantage of their condition or circumstance. The defendants argued that the transfer was a genuine commercial transaction and that the plaintiffs were not under any special disadvantage.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not proven their case of undue influence or unconscionability. The court noted that the plaintiffs' evidence was not always reliable or credible, and the defendants' evidence was largely credible. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that the defendants exerted actual undue influence over them, nor had they proven that the relationship between the parties gave rise to a presumption of undue influence. Similarly, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were suffering from a special disadvantage or that the defendants unconscientiously took advantage of their condition or circumstance. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed. The parties were to file and serve written submissions in respect of costs, of not more than 3 pages, within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed.

2. Within 14 days the parties are to file and serve written submissions in respect of costs, of not more than 3 pages.

Background

Background to the litigation

Turning now to deal with some of the evidence common to both issues before considering the issues of undue influence and unconscionability.Witnesses and general facts The following witnesses gave evidence:(a)For the plaintiffs:(i)the first plaintiff;(ii)the second plaintiff; and(iii)Mandeep Singh (real estate agent).(b)For the defendants:(i)the first defendant;(ii)the second defendant; and(iii)Renee Caldwell (the daughter of the plaintiffs and the sister of the first defendant). A representative of the ANZ Bank was also called to give evidence to prove as a business record electronic diary notes kept of the ANZ Bank’s communications with the second plaintiff. The parties also relied upon affidavit evidence[6] as follows:(a)For the plaintiffs:(i)Denis Wong[7] (valuer).(b)For the defendants:(i)Nicholas Payne[8] (valuer); and(ii)Rochelle Leanne Field[9] (real estate agent – historical rental appraisals).[6]Without requiring the deponents for cross-examination.[7]Affidavit sworn 26 March 2025.[8]Affidavit affirmed 26 March 2025.[9]Affidavit sworn 26 March 2025. It is necessary to make some preliminary comments about the evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants, including as to their credibility and reliability:(a)The first plaintiff’s evidence was in quite general terms. There were aspects that the first plaintiff could not recall, which is perhaps understandable given the first plaintiff is 82 years of age with some sight difficulties. The first plaintiff appeared to give evidence to the best of his recollection, but he was not the key person on some aspects, and on others his evidence was not helpful or reliable.(b)The second plaintiff could recall some aspects in minute detail and could not recall other aspects at all. This does impact on the second plaintiff’s reliability and credibility. While the second plaintiff is 76 years of age, the second plaintiff had a good understanding of the issues in the proceeding and presented as quite savvy. I find that the second plaintiff’s evidence in some key respects was unreliable and not credible. This will be specifically addressed below.(c)The first defendant and second defendant were largely credible and reliable witnesses. At times the defendants appeared defensive in their evidence, but this could be explained by the nature of the claims being made and the strained family relationship. There were some aspects that the defendants could not recall specifics of, but these were peripheral to the main issues and did not impact their overall credibility. I make the following findings of fact on the evidence at trial:(a)The first plaintiff is currently 82 years of age and the second plaintiff is 76 years of age. The plaintiffs are currently retired and had operated their own cleaning business for many years, with the final tax return for the cleaning business being lodged in 2019. (b)The plaintiffs currently receive the old age pension and also receive a government rental assistance benefit.(c)The first plaintiff had bought the land and built the house with his father, brother, and uncle, being the Rochedale South Property. The plaintiffs had lived in the Rochedale South Property as their home since 1971, being approximately 50 years. Consequently, the plaintiffs were sentimental about the Rochedale South Property.(d)In the period of approximately 12 months before June 2019, the plaintiffs were in arrears in their mortgage payments to the ANZ Bank and the second plaintiff was in regular contact with the ANZ Bank about their financial hardship.(e)By approximately February 2019, the ANZ Bank records indicate that the plaintiffs had to sell the Rochedale South Property. Otherwise, the Rochedale South Property would need to be surrendered to the ANZ Bank or litigation would be commenced.

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.

CITATION:	Hastie & anor v Hastie & anor [2025] QSC 190
PARTIES:	ALLAN HASTIE (first plaintiff) and JEANETTE FAY HASTIE (second plaintiff) v CRAIG ANDREW HASTIE (first defendant) and KYLIE ELIZABETH HASTIE (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 9844 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27-28 March and 2 April 2025
JUDGE:	Williams J
ORDER:	1. The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed. 2. Within 14 days the parties are to file and serve written submissions in respect of costs, of not more than 3 pages.
CATCHWORDS:	EQUITY – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – WHERE NO PRESUMPTION ARISES – where the plaintiffs had a mortgage over their property and were struggling to make repayments – where the bank was threatening to foreclose – where the plaintiffs transferred the property to the defendants in exchange for the defendants paying the outstanding mortgage and rates owed – where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants promised that they could remain in the property rent free or the defendants would provide other accommodation to them – where the plaintiffs paid rent to the defendants – whether the transfer of the property was a result of actual undue influence over the plaintiffs – whether the relations between the parties raised a presumption of undue influence EQUITY – UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD – GENERALLY - where the plaintiffs had a mortgage over their property and were struggling to make repayments – where the bank was threatening to foreclose – where the plaintiffs transferred the property to the defendants in exchange for the defendants paying the outstanding mortgage and rates owed – where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants promised that they could remain in the property rent free or the defendants would provide other accommodation to them – where the plaintiffs paid rent to the defendants – whether the plaintiffs were suffering from a special disadvantage – whether the defendants unconscientiously took advantage of any condition or circumstance of the plaintiffs Avon Finance Co Ltd v Bridger [1985] 2 All ER 281, cited Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362, cited Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447; [1983] HCA 14, cited Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113; [1936] HCA 41, cited Tulloch (decd) v Braybon (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 650, cited Union Fidelity Trustee Co of Australia Ltd v Gibson [1971] VR 573, cited
COUNSEL:	M G Larsen for the plaintiffs A M Laylee for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	De Brenni & Co for the plaintiffs ACS Legal Solutions for the defendants