Rowe v Van Den Ende - [2025] NSWSC 1183

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rowe v Van Den Ende [2025] NSWSC 1183
Hearing dates: 29 and 30 September 2025
Date of orders: 9 October 2025
Decision date: 09 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity – Probate and Family Provision List – Family Provision
Before: Peden J
Decision:
At [113]

Catchwords:
EQUITY – undue influence – separate question – transfer of property by wife from sole ownership to joint tenants with husband – whether transfer should be set aside – where insufficient evidence to demonstrate actual undue influence – where undue influence sought to be inferred from “snippets of events” – no undue influence established
EQUITY – unconscionable conduct – special disability or disadvantage – wife said to be “susceptible” to husband’s influence in relation to transfer of property to joint tenants – no special disability established – no knowledge of special disability pleaded – transfer explicable

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 59

Cases Cited:
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Crawley v Short [2009] NSWCA 410
Johnson v Butress (1936) 56 CLR 113
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392
Lindsay Petroleum Company v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621
Nitopi v Nitopi (2022) 109 NSWLR 390
Sze Tu v Lowe (2014) 89 NSWLR 317
Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85

Texts Cited:
The Laws of Australia (2024, Thomson Reuters)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nardi Maria Rowe (Plaintiff)
Simon James Van Den Ende (First Defendant)
Geoffrey Ralph Surgeon (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
F Tregenza (Plaintiff)
A Stevens with J Lee (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Bartier Perry (Plaintiff)
Gavin Parsons and Associates (First Defendant, submitting appearance)
Fox and Staniland (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00326253
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

In October 2014, Robin Nardi Rowe transferred her unencumbered home in Wahroonga, New South Wales, into the names of herself and her husband of 24 years, John Charles Colussi, as joint tenants for no consideration. In this judgment I refer to family members involved by their first names, meaning no disrespect.
Robin died in 2021 and John died in 2022 and this dispute concerns their estates. Robin’s daughter, Nardi Maria Rowe, seeks to have the transfer set aside based on undue influence or unconscionability.
For the reasons that follow, I do not consider Nardi has satisfied her burden of proof. Below I set out the relevant chronology of events that gives rise to my decision.

History of events

Nardi is the eldest child of Robin and her first husband, Pieter Bakker. Nardi was born in March 1959. Nardi has a younger brother, Peter Rowe.
Nardi considered Robin had a very successful career as a marketing researcher; she was university educated and climbed the corporate ladder.
In about 1972, Robin separated from Mr Bakker and they divorced after that.
In about 1974, Robin married Terry Rowe. Terry unfortunately died unexpectedly in 1980. Robin inherited the Wahroonga property they had bought together. She also inherited some superannuation…

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 Rowe v Van Den Ende

Details

AGLC: Rowe v Van Den Ende [2025] NSWSC 1183
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1183
Decision Date: 09 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Rowe v Van Den Ende were a husband and wife, where the wife had transferred property from her sole ownership to joint tenancy with her husband. The dispute centred on whether the transfer should be set aside due to claims of undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the wife had been subject to undue influence or unconscionable conduct by the husband in relation to the property transfer. The wife argued that the husband exercised undue influence over her and that she was at a special disadvantage, making her susceptible to his influence. The court was required to determine whether these claims were substantiated by the evidence presented.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate actual undue influence, noting that the claims were based on isolated incidents rather than a clear pattern of undue influence. The court further determined that the wife had not established a special disability or disadvantage, and that there was no knowledge of such a disability pleaded. The transfer of property was considered explicable by the natural and probable motives of the parties. As a result, the court held that the wife had not succeeded in proving that the transfer should be set aside.

The court ruled that the transfer of property from the wife to joint tenancy with her husband would not be set aside. The judge found no evidence of undue influence or unconscionable conduct sufficient to justify such a remedy. The court's decision emphasised the need for clear and compelling evidence to establish claims of undue influence or unconscionable conduct in property transactions.

Orders