Turner v Windever

The case of Turner v Windever involved an elderly woman, Turner, who transferred property to her child, Windever, at an undervalue. The question before the court was whether this constituted unconscionable conduct under the principles of equity. Turner was in possession of her mental faculties but was frail and elderly at the time of the transaction. The court was tasked with determining whether the transfer was unconscionable, specifically whether Turner's special disadvantage had been established. Special disadvantage in this context refers to a situation where one party is placed at a significant disadvantage in dealing with another party, which is not merely the consequence of imprudence but of some special disadvantage or infirmity of which the other party is or ought to be aware.

The court considered whether Turner's age, frailty, and the resulting disadvantage were sufficient to satisfy the requirement of special disadvantage. It was noted that Turner, although frail, retained her mental faculties and was not suffering from any cognitive impairment. The court deliberated on the nature and extent of the disadvantage that constituted a special disadvantage sufficient to establish unconscionable conduct. Ultimately, the court held that Turner's age and frailty alone, without evidence of cognitive impairment or other infirmities, did not amount to the special disadvantage required. The transfer, while at an undervalue, did not meet the threshold for unconscionable conduct as it did not exploit a significant vulnerability or infirmity on Turner's part.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the need for a more profound incapacity or infirmity to satisfy the special disadvantage requirement. The judgment clarified that while age and frailty are factors to be considered, they must be accompanied by a more substantial disadvantage that affects the party's capacity to understand the nature of the transaction or to protect their interests. The court did not find that Turner's situation met this standard, and therefore, the transfer was not unconscionable. The court's decision underscored the necessity for a more pronounced incapacity or infirmity to establish unconscionable conduct under equity, highlighting the nuanced application of these principles in property transactions involving vulnerable parties.