Li v So

Li brought proceedings against So, seeking damages and an account of profits following an investment in a residential property. The property was held as tenants in common, and the purchase was secured by a mortgage and guarantees. Li alleged that So acted unconscionably and breached fiduciary duties by allowing his personal interests to conflict with his fiduciary obligations. The legal issues were whether So had acted unconscionably, whether Li was subject to a special disability or disadvantage, and whether So was entitled to exercise discretion in the face of the plaintiff's illegality.

The court found that So had not acted unconscionably, nor was Li subject to any special disability or disadvantage. The court held that the mere denial of executing guarantees in her name did not constitute a special disability or disadvantage. Additionally, Li's claim for loss of opportunity to pursue alternative investments was dismissed, as it was not substantiated by evidence. The court also found that So was not entitled to exercise discretion in the face of Li's illegality, as she was a foreign person whose presence in Australia was subject to a time limit imposed by law. Li held a temporary resident visa and failed to provide compulsory notification to the Treasurer, rendering her disentitled to equitable relief.

The court dismissed Li's claims and ordered her to pay So's costs. The court held that So had not breached any fiduciary duties or acted unconscionably, and Li was not subject to any special disability or disadvantage. The court also found that Li's illegality disentitled her to equitable relief. The court ordered Li to pay So's costs of the proceeding in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.