Archer v Archer No. 2 [1999] NSWSC 500

Archer v Archer No. 2 [1999] NSWSC 500

The plaintiff failed to prove undue influence or unconscionable conduct. The court found that Exhibit 18 was a fabrication and forgery, that Mrs. Archer had agreed to and understood the transfer, that the solicitor gave sufficient explanation, that there was no trickery, domination, overbearing of her will, special disadvantage, or unconscientious taking of a benefit by Trevor. The claim was therefore dismissed and the defendant was entitled to the moneys held pending the result.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Equity Claim Concerning Transfer of Rural Property Proceeds Based on Undue Influence and Unconscionable Conduct / New Trial After the Court of Appeal Set Aside Orders Made by Simos J and Ordered a New Trial of Mrs. Archer's Claims
Outcome
Claim dismissed; defendant entitled to the moneys held to abide the result of the action.
Legal Topics
['undue Influence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'inter Generational Transfer of Rural Property' 'forgery of Contemporaneous Note' 'costs']
['equity' 'property Law'] ['undue Influence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'inter Generational Transfer of Rural Property' 'forgery of Contemporaneous Note' 'costs']

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

Equity Claim Concerning Transfer of Rural Property Proceeds Based on Undue Influence and Unconscionable Conduct / New Trial After the Court of Appeal Set Aside Orders Made by Simos J and Ordered a New Trial of Mrs. Archer's Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mrs. Archer's transfer of her interest in 'Sussex' to Trevor was procured by undue influence." 'Whether Trevor engaged in unconscionable conduct in obtaining or retaining the benefit of the transfer.' 'Whether Exhibit 18, the alleged contemporaneous note dated 1 December 1989, was genuine.' "Whether the plaintiff was entitled to one third of the proceeds of sale of 'Sussex'."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove undue influence or unconscionable conduct. The court found that Exhibit 18 was a fabrication and forgery, that Mrs. Archer had agreed to and understood the transfer, that the solicitor gave sufficient explanation, that there was no trickery, domination, overbearing of her will, special disadvantage, or unconscientious taking of a benefit by Trevor. The claim was therefore dismissed and the defendant was entitled to the moneys held pending the result.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; defendant entitled to the moneys held to abide the result of the action.

Orders

  • ['The claim of the plaintiff, Una Evelyn Archer be dismissed.' "The plaintiff, Mrs. Archer, pay the defendant's costs of the trial before me." "The plaintiffs, Una Evelyn Archer and Ernest Robert Archer, pay the defendant's costs of the first trial to the date of the judgment of Simos J." 'Liberty to apply to relist...