Nitopi v Nitopi [2022] NSWCA 162

Nitopi v Nitopi [2022] NSWCA 162

Actual or constructive knowledge of the special disadvantage on the part of the appellant is required for unconscionable dealing. Constructive notice alone is insufficient. In this case, evidence of such knowledge was only established for the payment made after the appellant became aware of the deceased’s lack of capacity (following a QCAT decision). Relief for unconscientious dealing is limited to that final payment; the appeal is allowed in part and orders below are varied accordingly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'unconscionable Dealing' 'special Disadvantage' 'restitution']
['equity'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'unconscionable Dealing' 'special Disadvantage' 'restitution']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether constructive notice or knowledge is sufficient for unconscionable dealing claims in equity' 'Whether equitable presumption of unconscientious exploitation arises where special disadvantage and knowledge thereof are established' "Requirement for proof of predatory exploitation or unconscientious retention for equity's intervention" 'Whether moral pressure suffices for unconscientious exploitation']

Ratio Decidendi

Actual or constructive knowledge of the special disadvantage on the part of the appellant is required for unconscionable dealing. Constructive notice alone is insufficient. In this case, evidence of such knowledge was only established for the payment made after the appellant became aware of the deceased’s lack of capacity (following a QCAT decision). Relief for unconscientious dealing is limited to that final payment; the appeal is allowed in part and orders below are varied accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • ['Amend order for entry of judgment against appellant to substitute $202,000 plus agreed interest for $2,220,335.02' 'Order respondent to repay appellant any moneys paid over and above amount payable per the varied order' "Order respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal" 'Set aside orders for costs below and...