Urane v Whipper [2001] NSWSC 796

The transaction was not set aside for undue influence as the plaintiff's will, although influenced by his circumstances, was not overborne and he chose to accept the arrangement, albeit reluctantly. However, the transaction was a result of unconscientious dealing due to the plaintiff's special disability and lack of proper independent advice, and the defendant was ordered to repay the sum contributed by the plaintiff plus interest, secured by a charge on the property.

Parties: Plaintiff: Warren Urane; Defendant: Julie Adele Whipper
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 12 September 2001
Procedural Posture: Equity Proceedings / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome: Judgment for plaintiff (relief granted for unconscionable dealing, no undue influence)
Legal Topics: Undue Influence, Unconscionable Conduct

Equity Undue Influence Unconscionable Conduct

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Warren Urane

Plaintiff

Julie Adele Whipper

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

1 Whether the transaction by which the plaintiff's proceeds of sale were applied to purchase property in the defendant's name alone was procured by undue influence
2 Whether the transaction constituted unconscionable conduct by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff (relief granted for unconscionable dealing, no undue influence)

Orders

The defendant pay the plaintiff within three months the sum of $163,199 plus interest at 8% per annum from 23 March 2000.
After the expiration of three months, the sum to carry interest at court rates.