Watkins v Combes

The case of *Watkins v Combes* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appeal concerned a transfer of land and a gift of money made by Laura Josephine Reynolds, a woman aged sixty-nine, to the appellants, Daniel and Ellen Margaret Watkins. The respondents, beneficiaries under Mrs. Reynolds's will, sought to have these transactions set aside, alleging they were procured by the undue influence of the appellants.

The High Court was required to determine whether the transfer of land and the gift of money were valid transactions or if they were voidable due to undue influence exerted by the appellants over Mrs. Reynolds. Specifically, the court had to consider the nature of the relationship between Mrs. Reynolds and the appellants, the circumstances surrounding the transactions, the presence or absence of independent advice, and whether the burden of proof had been discharged by the appellants to demonstrate the validity of the transactions.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ., held that the transaction was properly set aside. Their reasoning was that Mrs. Reynolds was under the complete dominion of the appellants at the time of the transfer, and in the absence of independent advice, the transaction could not stand. They found that the advice provided by a solicitor who acted for all parties and received initial instructions from the appellants was not independent. Isaacs J. reached the same conclusion, finding that Mrs. Reynolds reposed confidence in and was influenced by the appellants regarding her financial affairs. He determined that the transaction was highly disadvantageous to Mrs. Reynolds and advantageous to the appellants, thus placing the burden on them to prove no undue influence was used. He concluded they failed to meet this burden because the transaction was unconscionable, improvident, lacked independent advice, and originated with the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The court ordered that the transfer of land and the gift of money were fraudulent and void as against the persons entitled to Mrs. Reynolds's estate.