Legal Research
Cases
White v Wills

White v Wills

Case [2014] NSWSC 1160 22 August 2014

Undue Influence

Presumption of Undue Influence

Rebuttal of Presumption

Improvide Transaction

Independent Advice

Unjust Transaction

Suspicious Circumstances

Trusts & Equity

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Edith White v Judith Liane Wills [2014] NSWSC 1160
Hearing dates: 15, 16, 17, 18, 30 July 2014
Decision date: 22 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Expedition List
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See paragraph [560]

Catchwords: EQUITY - undue influence - where plaintiff executed a deed not to revoke her will - whether presumption of undue influence arises - whether presumption rebutted - whether improvident transaction - whether plaintiff received independent advice - whether unjust under Contracts Review Act - whether doctrine of suspicious circumstances applies
Legislation Cited: Contracts Review Act 1980
Evidence Act 1995
Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (QLD)
Succession Act 2006
Cases Cited: Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hospital [1980] 2 NSWLR 542
Ali v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 183
Allcard v Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145
Aslan Ahmed v Kopf Phyllis [1995] NSWCA 26
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1991) 22 NSWLR 1
Barkley v Barkley Brown [2009] NSWSC 76
Bester v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 30
Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Brown v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2011] NSWSC 1203
Courtney v Powell [2012] NSWSC 460
Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia [2000] FCA 1084; (2000) 174 ALR 97
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gartside v Isherwood (1783) 28 ER 1297
Grace v Grace [2012] NSWSC 976
Hamilton v Carter [2011] NSWSC 394
Ho v Powell (2001) 51 NSWLR 572
Huguenin v Baseley (1807) 14 Ves Jun 273; 33 ER 526
Inche Noriah v Shaik Alle Bin Omar [1929] AC 127
Janson v Janson [2007] NSWSC 1344
Jenyns v Public Curator Qld (1953) 90 CLR 113
Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Jones v Moss [2007] NSWSC 969
Lym International Pty Ltd v Marcolongo [2011] NSWCA 303
Megic v Public Trustee for the Australian Capital Territory (1995) 59 FCR 165
National Westminster Bank Plc v Morgan [1985] 1 A C 686
Nemeth v Australian Litigation Funders Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 198
Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519
Palmer v Bank of NSW [1973] 2 NSWLR 244
Poosathurai v Kannappa Chettiar [1919] LR 47 I A
Provident Capital Ltd v Papa [2013] NSWCA 36
Quek v Beggs (1990) 5 BPR 11,761
R v Navarolli [2010] 1 Qd R 27
Re Coomer [1911] 1 Ch 723
Smith v Clegg [2005] 1 Qd R 561
Spong v Spong (1914) 18 CLR 544
Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757; [2012] NSWCA 285
Trustee for the Salvation Army (NSW) Property Trust and Anor v Becker and Anor [2007] NSWCA 136
Tulloch (deceased) v Braybon (No 2) [2010] NSWSC 650
Vernon v Watson; Estate Clarice Isabel Quigley dec'd [2002] NSWSC 600
Watkins v Combes (1922) 30 CLR 180
West v AGC (1986) 5 NSWLR 610
Westmelton (Vic) Pty Ltd…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading White v Wills

Details

AGLC: White v Wills [2014] NSWSC 1160
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1160
Decision Date: 22 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of White v Wills involves the plaintiff, Mrs. White, who sought to establish whether the presumption of undue influence arose in her execution of a deed, which purported to revoke her will in favour of her daughter, Mrs. Wills. The High Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this dispute, considering both equitable principles and statutory provisions, including those under the Contracts Review Act.

The primary legal issues the Court addressed were whether a presumption of undue influence was applicable in the context of the execution of the deed, whether this presumption had been successfully rebutted, and if the transaction was improvident or unjust. The Court also considered whether Mrs. White had received independent legal advice before executing the deed and whether the doctrine of suspicious circumstances was applicable. Furthermore, the Court examined whether the transaction was unjust under the Contracts Review Act, potentially rendering the deed voidable.

In its decision, the Court held that a presumption of undue influence did arise given the relationship between the parties and the nature of the transaction. The Court found that this presumption was not rebutted by the defendants, as there was insufficient evidence to show that Mrs. White had freely exercised her will in executing the deed. The Court determined that the transaction was improvident and unjust, particularly in light of the lack of independent legal advice received by Mrs. White. The doctrine of suspicious circumstances was also found to apply, further supporting the plaintiff's position. Consequently, the Court concluded that the deed was voidable under the Contracts Review Act.

The Court ordered that the deed revoking Mrs. White's will in favour of Mrs. Wills be set aside, reinstating the terms of her original will. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of independent legal advice in such transactions and the stringent scrutiny applied to relationships involving potential undue influence.

Orders