Jones v Bouffier

The case of *Jones v Bouffier* involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Martin Bouffier and Grace Bouffier (as administratrix of her deceased brother's estate), and the defendant, a solicitor. The plaintiffs sought to have a sale agreement for certain land declared voidable. The core of the dispute stemmed from an initial agreement where the defendant was to receive a percentage of any proceeds recovered for the plaintiffs, and a subsequent sale of land by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement for the sale of land was voidable on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiffs alleged that a fiduciary relationship of principal and agent existed between themselves and the defendant at the time of the sale, and that the defendant had failed to disclose material facts regarding the property's value, specifically a pre-existing agreement to re-sell the land to a third party. Secondly, the plaintiffs contended that the approval of the sale by the Registrar of Probates had been obtained through the defendant's non-disclosure of these material facts. The plaintiffs also argued that an initial agreement for the defendant to receive a share of recovered proceeds was champertous.

The Full Court of the High Court of Australia, by majority, held that while the initial agreement was indeed champertous, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund of the defendant's agreed share as there was no evidence of fraud or undue pressure, and the bargain was not improvident. Crucially, the Court found that the agreement for the sale of land was not voidable. The majority reasoned that the evidence did not support the existence of a principal and agent relationship at the time of the sale; instead, the parties were dealing with each other at arm's length as vendor and purchaser. Furthermore, the Court held that the defendant had no duty to disclose his re-sale agreement to the Registrar of Probates, as his status as a purchaser did not impose such an obligation.

Consequently, the appeal by the defendant was allowed, and the decision of the Equity Court was reversed. The plaintiffs' claim for relief based on the alleged voidability of the sale agreement was dismissed.