La Selva v La Selva [2025] NSWSC 78

La Selva v La Selva [2025] NSWSC 78

Each of the impugned transactions was the product of unconscionable conduct by Angelo, taken advantage of Silvana's special disadvantage, and none were fair, just, or reasonable. Angelo must refund $1,293,000 to Silvana's estate. The Loan Agreement was found, had it been necessary, to be unenforceable due to lack of consideration and in any event unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). After appointment as attorney, Angelo’s benefit transactions were in breach of fiduciary duty, except for those with fully informed consent evidenced in Silvana’s notes.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Milvia La Selva; Second Plaintiff: Melissa Isaacs; Defendant: Angelo La Selva
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Equity / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs succeeded: orders for Angelo to repay $1,293,000 plus interest to the estate; costs to be determined after further submissions; final orders to be provided or further submissions if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Conduct, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unjust Contracts, Recovery of Money Paid, Enduring Power of Attorney
Equity Contracts Unconscionable Conduct Breach of Fiduciary Duty Unjust Contracts Recovery of Money Paid Enduring Power of Attorney

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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milvia La Selva

First Plaintiff

Melissa Isaacs

Second Plaintiff

Angelo La Selva

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether withdrawals made from elderly mother's account by carer son should be set aside for unconscionable conduct
  2. 2 Whether mother was under a special disadvantage and if son took unconscionable advantage
  3. 3 Whether transactions/gifts were fair, just and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Each of the impugned transactions was the product of unconscionable conduct by Angelo, taken advantage of Silvana's special disadvantage, and none were fair, just, or reasonable. Angelo must refund $1,293,000 to Silvana's estate. The Loan Agreement was found, had it been necessary, to be unenforceable due to lack of consideration and in any event unjust under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). After appointment as attorney, Angelo’s benefit transactions were in breach of fiduciary duty, except for those with fully informed consent evidenced in Silvana’s notes.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs succeeded: orders for Angelo to repay $1,293,000 plus interest to the estate; costs to be determined after further submissions; final orders to be provided or further submissions if not agreed.

Orders

  • Direct the parties to confer and seek to agree final orders to give effect to these reasons, including as to costs.
  • Direct the parties to provide any agreed orders, or competing orders, to my Associate by no later than 5pm on 3 March 2025.