1. Within 7 days of these orders being made, the parties are to provide agreed or competing short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons, including proposed orders for the further conduct of the proceedings, dealing with the question of remittal or final disposition.
Catchwords:
APPEAL – EQUITY – Undue influence – unconscionable conduct – laches – gift of family home to daughter – whether error in assessment of relationship of ascendancy – whether error in analysis of special disadvantage – whether error in principles concerning delay in seeking relief
Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2015)
R Bigwood, “The Undue Influence of ‘Non-Australian’ Undue Influence Law on Australian Undue Influence Law: Farewell Johnson v Buttress? Part II” (2019) 35 Journal of Contract Law
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 Wu v Wu
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wu v Wu [2024] ACTCA 8
Case
[2024] ACTCA 8
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between a mother, the appellant, and her daughter, the respondent, regarding the gift of the family home. The mother sought to set aside the gift, alleging undue influence and unconscionable conduct on the part of her daughter. The primary judge had dismissed the mother's claim.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in assessing the relationship between the parties, specifically concerning any ascendancy of the daughter over the mother, and whether the primary judge had correctly analysed the concept of special disadvantage in the context of the mother's circumstances. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the principles of laches, or delay in seeking relief, had been correctly applied.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had made errors in assessing the relationship of ascendancy and in the analysis of special disadvantage. The court determined that the mother had established a relationship where she was subject to the influence of her daughter, and that the daughter had exercised undue influence in procuring the gift of the family home. The court also found that the primary judge had erred in applying the doctrine of laches, as the delay in commencing proceedings was not so significant as to bar the mother's claim.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered that within seven days of the orders being made, the parties were to provide agreed or competing short minutes of order giving effect to the reasons, including proposed orders for the further conduct of the proceedings, dealing with the question of remittal or final disposition.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Within 7 days of these orders being made, the parties are to provide agreed or competing short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons, including proposed orders for the further conduct of the proceedings, dealing with the question of remittal or final disposition.