Johnson v Buttress [1936] HCA 41

Johnson v Buttress [1936] HCA 41

An antecedent relationship of trust and confidence existed whereby Johnson was in a position to exert influence over Buttress, an illiterate and dependent man of low intelligence, making the transfer of his only substantial asset to Johnson as a gift. The law presumes undue influence in such circumstances, and the donee (Johnson) failed to displace this presumption by affirmative evidence showing the transaction was Buttress's free, informed, and deliberate act. Therefore, the transaction must be set aside.

Parties
Appellant / Defendant: JOHNSON; Respondent / Plaintiff: BUTTRESS (John Spencer Raymond, as administrator c.t.a. of John Spencer Buttress, dec’d, and assignee of Agnes Emily Hart)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equitable Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Gifts Inter Vivos, Fiduciary Relationship, Burden of Rebuttal, Voluntary Transactions
Equity Undue Influence Gifts Inter Vivos Fiduciary Relationship Burden of Rebuttal Voluntary Transactions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JOHNSON

Appellant / Defendant

BUTTRESS (John Spencer Raymond, as administrator c.t.a. of John Spencer Buttress, dec’d, and assignee of Agnes Emily Hart)

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equitable Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the transfer of property from Buttress to Johnson procured by undue influence?
  2. 2 Did a fiduciary or special relationship of influence exist between Johnson and Buttress so as to raise a presumption of undue influence?
  3. 3 Was the presumption of undue influence rebutted by evidence that the transfer was the donor's voluntary and free act?

Ratio Decidendi

An antecedent relationship of trust and confidence existed whereby Johnson was in a position to exert influence over Buttress, an illiterate and dependent man of low intelligence, making the transfer of his only substantial asset to Johnson as a gift. The law presumes undue influence in such circumstances, and the donee (Johnson) failed to displace this presumption by affirmative evidence showing the transaction was Buttress's free, informed, and deliberate act. Therefore, the transaction must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • The decree of the Supreme Court of New South Wales is affirmed.