Williams v Maalouf - [2005] VSC 346

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4749 of 2004

SYLVIA WILLIAMS	Plaintiff
v
NABIL MAALOUF	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	31 May, 1, 2 and 3 June 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Williams v Maalouf
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 346

---

EQUITY – gift – unconscionable conduct - whether plaintiff under a special disadvantage at time of gift – whether special disadvantage evident to donees of gift – legal and beneficial donees - subsequent gift – whether special disadvantage of original donor evident to subsequent donee – whether subsequent donee unconscionably procured gift to original donee – whether gift subject to a condition – whether condition fulfilled.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	S.J. Hibble	Slater & Gordon
For the Defendant	S.P. Newton	Galbally & O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Overview of facts and issues

In July 2003, the plaintiff made a gift in the sum of $200,000 (“the gift”). The gift was effected by a cheque drawn on the plaintiff’s account (“the cheque”). The cheque was drawn in favour of Ms Denise Jeremic, a work colleague of the plaintiff, who is now deceased (“Ms Jeremic” or “the deceased”) and the defendant. The defendant was also a work colleague of the plaintiff at the time.

At the time of the gift, Ms Jeremic had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She had previously been in a de facto relationship with the defendant, which relationship had terminated in about November 2002 and had been resumed following the diagnosis of her cancer.

There are many disputed facts about the circumstances in which the cheque was drawn and delivered to Ms Jeremic and the defendant. The plaintiff’s case is that the gift was expressly stated to be a gift to Ms Jeremic only, and that the defendant’s name appeared on the cheque because Ms Jeremic expressed a concern that receipt by her of the gift would have an adverse effect upon her pension or sickness benefits. Accordingly, the proceeds of the gift were to be banked to the account of the defendant, to hold on trust for Ms Jeremic.

Further, it is the plaintiff’s case that the gift was made on an express condition that the proceeds of the gift would be used to purchase a house for Ms Jeremic to live in and recuperate from her illness, which house would be registered in the name of Ms Jeremic (“the condition”).

The defendant denies that the gift was made to Ms Jeremic only. Further, the defendant denies that the gift was subject to the condition.

On behalf of the defendant, it is contended that the gift was made to him and Ms Jeremic jointly on an unconditional basis, in contemplation of their marriage.

It is not in dispute that, on the day the gift was made, the cheque was banked into the joint account of the defendant and Ms Jeremic and that, shortly…

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 Williams v Maalouf

Details

AGLC: Williams v Maalouf [2005] VSC 346
Case: [2005] VSC 346
Decision Date: 1 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williams v Maalouf, the plaintiff, Williams, sought to have a gift of property declared invalid on the grounds of unconscionable conduct and special disadvantage. The defendants, Maalouf, were the recipients of the property and argued that the gift was validly made. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred around the validity of a property transfer from Williams to Maalouf, and whether the transfer was procured by unconscionable conduct.

The court was required to determine whether Williams was under a special disadvantage at the time of the gift, and if so, whether this disadvantage was evident to the Maaloufs. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the subsequent gift from the Maaloufs to another party was procured unconscionably, and if there was a condition attached to the original gift that had not been fulfilled. The court also needed to decide whether the special disadvantage of Williams was evident to the subsequent donee and if the gift was subject to a condition.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of equity and the doctrine of unconscionable conduct. The court found that Williams was indeed under a special disadvantage, which was evident to the Maaloufs at the time of the gift. The court further held that the subsequent gift from the Maaloufs to another party was procured unconscionably, and that the special disadvantage of Williams was evident to that subsequent donee. The court determined that the original gift was subject to a condition that had not been fulfilled, rendering the gift invalid.

The final orders of the court were that the property transfer from Williams to Maalouf was declared invalid, and the property was ordered to be returned to Williams. The court also declared the subsequent gift from the Maaloufs to the other party invalid, and ordered the return of the property to the Maaloufs. The court emphasised the importance of considering the principles of equity and unconscionable conduct when dealing with property transfers, and the need to protect parties who may be under a special disadvantage.

Orders