Rowe v Van Den Ende

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.