Legal Research
Cases
Meiners v Gunn

Meiners v Gunn

Case [2020] WASC 18 24 January 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   MEINERS -v- GUNN [2020] WASC 18
CORAM:   ACTING JUSTICE STRK
HEARD:   3 - 5 DECEMBER 2018, 18 - 21 DECEMBER 2018 AND ON SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 29 JANUARY 2019 and 27 FEBRUARY 2019, and BY ORDERS MADE ON 25 MARCH 2019
DELIVERED          :   24 JANUARY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   24 JANUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1228 of 2018
BETWEEN:   HILDEGARD INGE MEINERS
Plaintiff
AND
DEBRA GUNN
Defendant

Catchwords:

Equity – Unconscionable dealing – Elderly mother of comparatively modest means and adult daughter – Money transferred from mother to daughter – Whether the mother was under a special disadvantage or disability in dealing with the daughter – Whether the special disadvantage or disability was sufficiently evident to the daughter to make it prima facie unfair or unconscionable for the daughter to accept or retain the benefit of the money transferred – Whether the daughter established that the transactions were fair, just and reasonable

Undue influence – Whether at the time of the transactions there existed a relationship between mother and daughter of such a nature as to involve reliance, dependence or trust on the mother’s part which created an ascendancy on the daughter's part

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr T M Clavey & Mr E Assibey-Bonsu
Defendant	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Douglas Cheveralls Lawyers
Defendant	:	In Person

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Dzienciol [2001] WASC 305
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Bridgewater v Leahy [1998] HCA 66; (1998) 194 CLR 457
Brown v Brown (1993) 31 NSWLR 582
Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Costin v Costin (1994) NSW ConvR 55‑715
Costin v Costin (1997) 77 BPR 15
Courtney v Powell [2012] NSWSC 460
Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] Ch 378
Hewitt v Gardner [2009] NSWSC 1107
Johnson v Buttress [1936] HCA 41; (1936) 56 CLR 113
Johnson v Johnson [2009] NSWSC 503
Louth v Diprose [1992] 175 CLR 621
Mercanti v Mercanti (2016) WAR 495
Micarone v Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd [1999] SASC 265; (1999) 75 SASR 1
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538
Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd v Vandenbergh (2010) 41 WAR 353
Powell v Powell [2002] WASC 105
Re Levey; Ex parte Official Assignee (1894) 15 LR (NSW) B&P 30
Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85
Wilton v Farnworth (1948) 76 CLR 646

ACTING JUSTICE STRK:

Ms Hildergard Meiners was born in July 1936. Ms Debra Gunn is Ms Meiners' daughter and one of Ms Meiners' four children to her first husband.
From about 1992, Ms Meiners lived with her late second husband at their home at 41 Amethyst Crescent, Mount Richon. In these reasons, I refer to this residence as the Armadale property. Ms Meiners and her late husband owned the Armadale property as joint tenants. Ms Meiners was widowed on 4…

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 Meiners v Gunn

Details

AGLC: Meiners v Gunn [2020] WASC 18
Case: [2020] WASC 18
Decision Date: 24 JANUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Meiners v Gunn, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether a daughter had engaged in unconscionable conduct or undue influence when receiving money from her elderly mother. The daughter, Gunn, had received over $600,000 from her mother, Meiners, through various transactions. The mother was 88 years old, with a modest estate, and had been diagnosed with dementia. The court was called upon to decide whether the mother's age and health constituted a special disadvantage, whether this disadvantage was evident to the daughter, and if the daughter could prove that the transactions were fair, just, and reasonable. Additionally, the court examined whether there existed a relationship between the parties that involved reliance, dependence, or trust on the part of the mother, creating an ascendancy on the part of the daughter.

The primary legal issues centred on whether the mother's age and health constituted a special disadvantage, and if this was apparent to the daughter, thereby making it unconscionable for the daughter to retain the benefits of the transactions. The court also considered whether the daughter could prove that the transactions were fair, just, and reasonable. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the relationship between the mother and daughter involved reliance, dependence, or trust on the mother's part, which would create an ascendancy on the daughter's part. The court examined the nature of the relationship, the circumstances surrounding the transactions, and the conduct of the daughter in light of these issues.

The High Court held that the mother's age and health did indeed constitute a special disadvantage, and this disadvantage was sufficiently evident to the daughter to make it unconscionable for her to accept or retain the benefits of the money transferred. The court found that the daughter had not discharged the onus of proving that the transactions were fair, just, and reasonable. Additionally, the court determined that there existed a relationship of such a nature that involved reliance, dependence, or trust on the mother's part, which created an ascendancy on the daughter's part. Consequently, the court found that the daughter had engaged in unconscionable conduct and undue influence, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were voidable.

The final orders of the court were that the transactions between the parties were voidable at the election of the mother. The court granted relief to the extent that the mother could seek to set aside the transactions and recover the money transferred. The daughter was required to return the funds to the mother, and any improvements made to properties with the transferred funds were also to be considered in the restitution process. The court emphasised the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and ensuring that transactions involving such parties are fair and just.

Orders