Torok v Becker

In the case of Torok v Becker, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered the relationship between the parties and the relevant factors that indicate actual undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The case involved a dispute between the testator's estate and one of her children regarding family provision claims. The child sought to have certain properties designated as part of the notional estate for the purpose of calculating the family provision claim. The court was required to determine whether the relationship between the parties gave rise to a presumption of undue influence and, if so, whether actual undue influence had occurred.

The legal issues before the court included the identification of the relevant factors that indicate actual undue influence and unconscionable conduct, particularly in the context of a relationship between a testator and her child. The court also had to consider whether the child's claim for family provision should be assessed based on a notional estate that included certain properties. The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, the extent of the child's reliance on the testator, and the circumstances surrounding the transfer of property.

The court found that the relationship between the parties gave rise to a presumption of undue influence due to the testator's significant influence over her child. However, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence of actual undue influence occurring in this case. The court found that the child had not demonstrated that the transfer of property was a result of the testator's undue influence, but rather a result of the child's own decision and financial need. The court also considered the child's special disability or disadvantage, but ultimately found that the child had not been subjected to unconscionable conduct. The court held that the order designating the properties as part of the notional estate should not be made, and dismissed the child's claim for family provision.

The final orders of the court were that the child's claim for family provision be dismissed, and that the order designating certain properties as part of the notional estate be set aside. The court held that the child had not demonstrated that the transfer of property was a result of undue influence or unconscionable conduct, and that the child's claim for family provision should not be assessed based on the notional estate that included the properties in question.