Louth v Diprose

The case before the High Court of Australia involved a dispute between Louth and Diprose. The specific nature of the dispute and the precise relief sought are not detailed in the provided text, which focuses on submissions made by counsel regarding legal principles.

The legal issues under consideration by the Court included the application of the doctrine of "concurrent findings" in appeals, particularly in light of previous High Court decisions such as *Introvigne*. Additionally, the Court was examining the distinction between large and small voluntary gifts in the context of undue influence or unconscionable conduct, and the evidentiary burden that arises from such distinctions.

Counsel for one of the parties argued that the principle regarding the burden of proof on a donee to justify a gift applies to large voluntary gifts, but not to smaller ones. This distinction is based on whether the gift can be reasonably accounted for by ordinary motives such as friendship or relationship. The Court was referred to English and Australian authorities, including *Allcard v Skinner* and *Spong v Spong*, which support the proposition that where a large voluntary gift is made, the recipient may be required to demonstrate that the donor had the capacity and knowledge of the transaction. The rationale is that such substantial gifts are not readily explained by ordinary motives, thus shifting the onus to the donee.