Williams v Maalouf

The case of Williams v Maalouf involved a dispute concerning a gift made by the plaintiff to the defendant, which was subsequently gifted by the defendant to a third party. The plaintiff sought to have the gift from the defendant to the third party set aside on the grounds of unconscionable conduct and the existence of a special disadvantage. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the plaintiff was under a special disadvantage when the initial gift was made, whether this special disadvantage was evident to the donees of the gift, and if the subsequent gift by the defendant to the third party was procured unconscionably. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the initial gift was subject to any conditions and if those conditions were fulfilled.

The court began by examining the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and whether the plaintiff was indeed under a special disadvantage when the initial gift was made. It was established that the plaintiff, due to a close personal relationship with the defendant, was indeed in a position of special disadvantage. The court then considered whether this special disadvantage was evident to the defendant at the time of the gift. Evidence suggested that the defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s special disadvantage, which played a significant role in the decision to gift the property. Furthermore, the court evaluated whether the subsequent gift by the defendant to the third party was procured unconscionably. The court found that the defendant unconscionably procured the gift from the plaintiff, knowing of the plaintiff's disadvantage, and subsequently gifted the property to the third party.

The court concluded that the initial gift was indeed subject to a condition, namely the maintenance of the close personal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. As this condition was not fulfilled, the gift was invalid. Consequently, the court set aside the subsequent gift to the third party, holding that it was procured unconscionably. The court ordered that the property be returned to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court ruled that the third party, having knowledge of the unconscionability, was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and thus had no claim to the property.