Un v Lee [2023] NSWSC 586

Un v Lee [2023] NSWSC 586

The plaintiff failed to establish any basis to impugn the 2014 transfer. The Court rejected significant aspects of his evidence, found that he had instructed or participated in the transfer, had access to a Cantonese-speaking solicitor, and was well aware that he was transferring ownership of the property to his daughters. He was not under a special disability that was taken advantage of, and the transfer was not unjust in the circumstances existing at the time. The alleged agreement to establish a family trust was not proved, non est factum failed because he understood the nature of the transaction, and the fraud allegations were rejected. As registered proprietors at the time of sale,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Ownership of Proceeds of Sale of Real Property and Validity of a Transfer Without Monetary Consideration / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
The plaintiff's claims were dismissed; the proceeds of sale paid into Court were ordered to be paid out to the defendants; the Cross-Claim was otherwise dismissed; the plaintiff/cross-defendant was ordered to pay the defendants/cross-claimants' costs.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'special Disability or Disadvantage' 'unjust Contracts' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'breach of Trust' 'constructive Trust' 'non Est Factum' 'fraud' 'real Property Transfer' 'proceeds of Sale Paid Into Court']
['equity' 'contracts' 'property Law' 'trusts'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'special Disability or Disadvantage' 'unjust Contracts' 'contracts Review Act 1980 (nsw)' 'breach of Trust' 'constructive Trust' 'non Est Factum' 'fraud' 'real Property Transfer' 'proceeds of Sale Paid Into Court']

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 Proceedings Concerning Ownership of Proceeds of Sale of Real Property and Validity of a Transfer Without Monetary Consideration / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 2014 transfer of 621 Canterbury Road, Belmore to the defendants should be declared void or set aside as an unconscionable dealing.' 'Whether the transfer was an unjust contract within the meaning of the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).' 'Whether the defendants committed a breach of trust by failing to establish a family trust.' 'Whether the transfer should be declared void on the ground of non est factum.' 'Whether the transfer was procured by fraud.' 'Whether the defendants, as registered proprietors at the time of sale, were entitled to the proceeds of sale paid into Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish any basis to impugn the 2014 transfer. The Court rejected significant aspects of his evidence, found that he had instructed or participated in the transfer, had access to a Cantonese-speaking solicitor, and was well aware that he was transferring ownership of the property to his daughters. He was not under a special disability that was taken advantage of, and the transfer was not unjust in the circumstances existing at the time. The alleged agreement to establish a family trust was not proved, non est factum failed because he understood the nature of the transaction, and the fraud allegations were rejected. As registered proprietors at the time of sale,...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed; the proceeds of sale paid into Court were ordered to be paid out to the defendants; the Cross-Claim was otherwise dismissed; the plaintiff/cross-defendant was ordered to pay the defendants/cross-claimants' costs.

Orders

  • ['The Statement of Claim be dismissed.' 'The proceeds of sale that were paid into Court be paid out to the defendants.' 'The defendants are entitled to the money equally.' 'The Cross-Claim will otherwise be dismissed.' "The plaintiff/cross-defendant pay the defendants/cross-claimants' costs of the proceedings."]