Twenty Ninth Macorp Nominees Pty Ltd v George

In the case of Twenty Ninth Macorp Nominees Pty Ltd v George, the plaintiff, Twenty Ninth Macorp Nominees Pty Ltd, brought proceedings against the defendants, George and his wife Pauline, to recover funds paid by the plaintiff to a third party, as well as interest. The plaintiff claimed that the funds were paid pursuant to an agreement between the parties, which was later to be formalised in writing, but which had not been properly executed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's evidence regarding the oral agreement was to be preferred over the defendants' evidence and whether the transaction could be enforced against Pauline despite her lack of understanding of the purport and effect of the documents. The court also needed to determine if there was authority for the husband to enter into the transaction on behalf of his wife and if the transaction was unconscionable to enforce against her.

The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was to be preferred over that of the defendants. It held that the agreement and the subsequent payment formed part of a single transaction, and the principles in Masters v Cameron applied. The court also found that the husband had the authority to enter into the transaction on behalf of his wife and that there were clear adoptive acts by her. Regarding the unconscionability of enforcing the transaction against Pauline, the court held that the onus of proof was on Pauline to show that she did not have a sufficient understanding of the purport and effect of the transaction. The court found that she was unable to discharge this onus and that it was not unconscionable to enforce the transaction against her.

The court ordered that the defendants were to repay the funds paid by the plaintiff to the third party, with interest, and that the mortgage over the matrimonial home be discharged.