WILLIS & AMPR v THOMPSON & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1645

WILLIS & AMPR v THOMPSON & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1645

Court found Mr Willis was under a special disadvantage (progressive terminal illness and debility); Mrs Thompson knew or ought to have known and either actively procured or passively accepted the substantial gift while the donor was vulnerable; the transaction was unconscionable and also procured by undue influence; plaintiffs entitled to declaratory relief and Bank ordered to remove Mrs Thompson's name; laches defence fails given the account was frozen and delay caused no unfair prejudice to defendant's ability to defend.

Citation
[2017] NZAR 1448
Parties
First Plaintiff: Leslie Arnold Willis; Second Plaintiff: Donald Bruce Thomas; First Defendant: Pamela Joyce Thompson; Second Defendant: ANZ Bank (New Zealand) Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (equity) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs; declarations granted that the Bonus Bonds transfer is voidable for unconscionability and undue influence; defendant Mrs Thompson has no legal or beneficial interest and Bank to remove her name; laches defence dismissed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Bargain, Undue Influence, Declaration of Title, Voidable Inter Vivos Gift, Delay (laches), Removal of Joint Account Holder
Equity Unconscionable Dealings Undue Influence Laches Succession and Wills Banking Unconscionable Bargain Declaration of Title +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Arnold Willis

First Plaintiff

Donald Bruce Thomas

Second Plaintiff

Pamela Joyce Thompson

First Defendant

ANZ Bank (New Zealand) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (equity) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether transfer of Bonus Bonds into joint names was voidable as an unconscionable bargain or transaction
  2. 2 Whether the transfer was procured by undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' delay bars relief by laches

Ratio Decidendi

Court found Mr Willis was under a special disadvantage (progressive terminal illness and debility); Mrs Thompson knew or ought to have known and either actively procured or passively accepted the substantial gift while the donor was vulnerable; the transaction was unconscionable and also procured by undue influence; plaintiffs entitled to declaratory relief and Bank ordered to remove Mrs Thompson's name; laches defence fails given the account was frozen and delay caused no unfair prejudice to defendant's ability to defend.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs; declarations granted that the Bonus Bonds transfer is voidable for unconscionability and undue influence; defendant Mrs Thompson has no legal or beneficial interest and Bank to remove her name; laches defence dismissed; costs reserved

Orders

  • The Bonus Bonds transaction is voidable at the suit of the plaintiffs as executors of the estate of Mr Willis on grounds of unconscionability
  • The Bonus Bonds transaction is voidable at the suit of the plaintiffs as executors of the estate of Mr Willis on grounds of undue influence