Khan v Khan

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were the owners of a property located at 544-546 Canterbury Road, Belfield, and an order that the defendant transfer the property to them. The defendant, who had been a close family friend of the plaintiffs, had been advised by a Mufti that he had a religious duty to honour an oral promise to sell the property to the plaintiffs. The defendant signed a memorandum of agreement in the presence of the plaintiffs, which was witnessed by the Mufti. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant had been subject to undue influence from the Mufti, a third party, when signing the memorandum, and that the agreement constituted part performance of an oral contract for the sale of land. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief because they had been knowingly party to the undue influence.

The court considered whether the Mufti's advice constituted third-party undue influence and whether the plaintiffs had knowingly participated in the undue influence. The court found that the Mufti's advice had not constituted undue influence because it had not interfered with the defendant's will. The plaintiffs had also knowingly participated in the undue influence because they had been aware of the Mufti's advice and had not objected to it. The court also considered whether the alleged oral contract for the sale of land constituted part performance, which would take the contract out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds. The court found that there had been no acts of part performance that were "unmistakeably referable" to the alleged oral contract.

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a declaration that they were the owners of the property or an order that the defendant transfer the property to them. The court found that the defendant had not been subject to undue influence from the Mufti and that the plaintiffs had knowingly participated in any undue influence. The court also found that there had been no part performance of the alleged oral contract for the sale of land. The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with costs.