Quinn v Quinn

[2016] QDC 337

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Quinn v Quinn [2016] QDC 337

PARTIES:

JOHN ROGER GOFTON QUINN
(plaintiff)

v

VARINA LEA QUINN
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4389 of 2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 and 5 May 2016

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

Claim dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – SPECIAL DISADVANTAGE – where the plaintiff transferred a block of land to the defendant – where the plaintiff says he was under a special disadvantage at the time he transferred the block and the defendant had knowledge of this disadvantage  – whether the defendant acted unconscionably

Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621

Paroz v Paroz &Ors [2010] QSC 41

COUNSEL:

Mr A P Collins for the plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

Quinn & Scattini Lawyers for the plaintiff

Defendant represented herself

1. The plaintiff was born on 28 February 1929.  He married on 24 November 1950 and had six children from this union.  His wife passed away on 22 January 2010.  At the time of her death he was the registered owner of Lot 1 on SP219243, Certificate of Title 50730288, a property known as 35 Lakeview Drive, Esk.  The property comprised of a house sitting on four acres of lawn and hedges.

1. About 8 months after his wife died the plaintiff subdivided the block into 2 lots and sold a one acre block. This was unrelated to this action. In or about June 2011 the plaintiff engaged a land surveyor to prepare a Plan of Survey for a further subdivision of the property at 35 Lakeview Drive Esk.  That Plan of Survey was registered in or about November 2011, it having been subdivided into two lots, house and land located at 35 Lakeview Drive, Esk sitting on two acres of land and a vacant block of land of one acre on Lot 2, SP245925, County of Cavendish, Parish of Esk, Title Reference 50867946.

1. The plaintiff was a builder by trade and had bought and sold houses over the years.  He had subdivided two blocks of the original five acres of property and sold them to neighbours.  He was familiar with subdivisions and property sales and as such regarded himself as experienced in property dealings and the defendant as lacking in experience.[1] There is an allegation on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant should have told the plaintiff to consult with a solicitor. I find having watched the plaintiff give evidence and examined his interviews with his solicitor that it is extremely unlikely that even if the defendant had advised the plaintiff to consult with a solicitor that he would have done so.

   [1] Exhibit 12 page 9

1. Around 19 December 2011 the plaintiff transferred the vacant land newly created to the defendant.  This property is the subject of this action.  The plaintiff says that the property was transferred as a result of the defendant’s unconscionable conduct.

1. The particulars of the unconscionable conduct are:

(a)        the defendant’s lodgement…