Sayer v Turk

The case of Sayer v Turk was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent, Mr. Turk, sought a declaration of possession of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s practice, having been appointed as a receiver under a judgment debt. The plaintiff, Mr. Sayer, contested this claim, arguing on several grounds, including unconscionable conduct by the respondent and the doctrine of non est factum.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether Mr. Turk’s conduct in obtaining the appointment as receiver was unconscionable, and whether Mr. Sayer could successfully invoke the doctrine of non est factum to avoid the effect of the judgment debt. Additionally, the court considered whether the respondent’s knowledge of certain matters could be imputed to Mr. Sayer, given that Mr. Turk had acted as a solicitor for both parties.

The court found that Mr. Turk’s conduct did not amount to unconscionability, as there was no evidence of any deliberate or reckless disregard for Mr. Sayer’s interests. Regarding the non est factum argument, the court determined that Mr. Sayer had not demonstrated that he was induced to sign the document by fraud or mistake. Furthermore, the court held that it was appropriate to impute knowledge to Mr. Sayer based on the respondent’s role as his solicitor. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr. Sayer’s claims and granted the respondent’s application for possession of the solicitor’s practice.