Guha v Guha (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 757

Guha v Guha (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 757

Mrs Guha was at a special disadvantage when she transferred the Marayong property to Samadrita because she was unable to look after herself and was vulnerable to exploitation, and the transfers of the family's only substantial asset for no consideration were plainly improvident. Samadrita had actual knowledge of her mother's condition through the NCAT application and did not rebut the equitable presumption after withdrawing her defence. The Court was satisfied that Samadrita took unconscientious advantage of Mrs Guha's special disability, so rescission based on unconscionable conduct succeeded and it was unnecessary to determine undue influence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning Rescission of Transfers of Family Property / Principal Judgment on the Papers After Withdrawal of Defence and Proposed Discontinuance of Cross Claim
Outcome
Mrs Guha succeeded on unconscionable conduct sufficient to obtain transfer relief; her claim was otherwise dismissed, Samadrita's cross-claim was dismissed, and Samadrita was ordered to pay Mrs Guha's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'special Disadvantage' 'improvident Transactions' 'rescission' 'undue Influence' 'transfer of Land' 'caveats' 'pleading Fraud' 'discontinuance of Cross Claim' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity Costs']
['equity' 'real Property' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'special Disadvantage' 'improvident Transactions' 'rescission' 'undue Influence' 'transfer of Land' 'caveats' 'pleading Fraud' 'discontinuance of Cross Claim' 'ordinary Costs' 'indemnity 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 Proceedings Concerning Rescission of Transfers of Family Property / Principal Judgment on the Papers After Withdrawal of Defence and Proposed Discontinuance of Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mrs Guha was entitled to relief rescinding the March 2018 and August 2019 transfers of the Marayong property to Samadrita.' "Whether the validity of Mr Guha's will dated 5 October 2017 should be determined in the proceedings." 'Whether an allegation that Samadrita procured the second transfer by fraud should be determined in the proceedings.' 'What costs orders should be made after Samadrita withdrew her defence and did not pursue her cross-claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Guha was at a special disadvantage when she transferred the Marayong property to Samadrita because she was unable to look after herself and was vulnerable to exploitation, and the transfers of the family's only substantial asset for no consideration were plainly improvident. Samadrita had actual knowledge of her mother's condition through the NCAT application and did not rebut the equitable presumption after withdrawing her defence. The Court was satisfied that Samadrita took unconscientious advantage of Mrs Guha's special disability, so rescission based on unconscionable conduct succeeded and it was unnecessary to determine undue influence.

Court Disposition

Mrs Guha succeeded on unconscionable conduct sufficient to obtain transfer relief; her claim was otherwise dismissed, Samadrita's cross-claim was dismissed, and Samadrita was ordered to pay Mrs Guha's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Order that the first defendant forthwith take all steps reasonably required to transfer to the plaintiff Lot [XX] also known as [XX] Terrigal Street, Marayong New South Wales.' "Grant liberty to apply with three days' notice with respect to Order (1)." "Order that the plaintiff's claim be otherwise dismissed."...