Perry v Gao [2019] NSWSC 1022

Perry v Gao [2019] NSWSC 1022

The Plaintiff’s gift of the Parramatta Property to the Defendant was set aside as having been procured by undue influence and alternatively by unconscionable conduct arising from his vulnerability, emotional dependence, and the Defendant’s ascendancy. Alternatively, the Financial Agreement was impracticable due to the sale of the Curl Curl property, justifying its setting aside and a s 90SM adjustment. The Plaintiff was entitled to a 50% interest in the Parramatta Property, to be realised by sale.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part. Gift of the Parramatta Property set aside. Plaintiff entitled to 50% interest in the Parramatta Property.
Legal Topics
['constructive Trusts' 'resulting Trusts' 'undue Influence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'de Facto Relationship Property' 'financial Agreement (s 90 UB, S 90 UM, S 90 Sm)' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction']
['equity' 'family Law'] ['constructive Trusts' 'resulting Trusts' 'undue Influence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'de Facto Relationship Property' 'financial Agreement (s 90 Ub, S 90 Um, S 90 Sm)' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction']

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

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the Plaintiff make a gift of the Parramatta Property to the Defendant and, if so, was it procured by undue influence or unconscionable conduct?' 'Were the Plaintiff and Defendant in a de facto relationship as at December 2009?' 'What is the effect and status of the Financial Agreement?' 'Should the Supreme Court of NSW exercise jurisdiction over the de facto property cause under the Family Law Act?' 'What is a just and equitable order regarding the Parramatta Property?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff’s gift of the Parramatta Property to the Defendant was set aside as having been procured by undue influence and alternatively by unconscionable conduct arising from his vulnerability, emotional dependence, and the Defendant’s ascendancy. Alternatively, the Financial Agreement was impracticable due to the sale of the Curl Curl property, justifying its setting aside and a s 90SM adjustment. The Plaintiff was entitled to a 50% interest in the Parramatta Property, to be realised by sale.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part. Gift of the Parramatta Property set aside. Plaintiff entitled to 50% interest in the Parramatta Property.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff’s gift of the Parramatta Property to the Defendant set aside on grounds of undue influence and unconscionable conduct; Plaintiff entitled to 50% interest.' 'Alternatively, Financial Agreement set aside as impracticable under s 90UM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); order that Plaintiff entitled to 50%...