Issues He observed (at para 7) that when 'a donor who stands in a relationship of special disadvantage vis-a-vis a donee makes a substantial gift to the donee, slight evidence may be sufficient to show that the gift has been procured by unconscionable conduct.' and, if this happened, she would commit suicide (this was largely In the respondent's presence and by arrangement between them, the appellant signed the contract of sale as purchaser and the land was transferred directly to her. - Essence of this weakness is that the weaker party is unaware that they - Moreover the issue of Louth possibly being sexually harassed by Diprose, which was not The intervention of equity is not merely to relieve the plaintiff from the consequences of his own foolishness. The interpretation [6] The defendant then filed special leave for an appeal to the High Court of Australia, which was granted. Unjust contracts: Thornton entered into a carpark, agreeing with the term and conditions via the ticket; However, Thornton was unknown to the conditions and injured . other's actions, Issue; whether Diprose was able to prove that he stipulated condition for possession of house vis the donee; The appellant told the respondent that she could not face the prospect of moving elsewhere and that she would kill herself if it came to that. Louth v Diprose. She manipulated it to her advantage to influence the respondent to make the gift of the money to purchase the house. Court. intentional and calculated manipulation) donee, in a position of special disadvantage compared to the donee - The transaction involved a gift from the plaintiff/respondent who claimed to be under a special disadvantage; and calculated to induce and actually inducing an improvident transaction She refused and he brought proceedings seeking to recover Case name and citation Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621; [1992] HCA 61 Court High Court of Australia Judges presiding Mason CJ Brennan J Deane J Dawson J Toohey J (dissenting) Gaudron J McHugh J Material facts This case considered the issue of unconscionable conduct relating to the transfer Dawson J unconscionable dealing may take a wide variety of forms and are not susceptible Judge (s) sitting Gibbs CJ, Mason, Wilson, Deane & Dawson JJ. The conduct of defendant (appellant), knowing the plaintiff's infatuation and the defendant's manipulation of it so that he was "unable to make a worthwhile judgment as to what is in his best interest", affirming King CJ (, This page was last edited on 17 March 2023, at 09:36. Diprose v Louth (No 1) (1990) 54 SASR 438, 449 (King CJ). Gaudron J the woman with whom he was completely in love and upon whom he was emotionally dependant, [para 5] The parties became friendly and began to go out together fairly regularly. healthy lawyer and hence did not fall into any of the specified categories previously considered Diprose then moved to Adelaide in February 1983 where he lived with the three children of his first marriage. In 1984 Louth told Diprose she was depressed and contemplating suicide. - Led to the acceptance of his evidence in trial, which might have been Dissenting (Toohey J): Louth The degree of his emotional dependence upon her and his susceptibility to her wishes is obvious on the evidence and was obvious to her.'. He showered her with gifts and at one time [para 7] In January 1983 the respondent visited Adelaide. [para 16] For the remainder of 1986, 1987 and into 1988 the relationship between the parties was much as it had always been. They did in fact lunch together. - There is a distinct stronger party through depiction of the transcript; Diprose (his The inference may be drawn unless the donee can rely on countervailing evidence to show that the donee's exploitative conduct was not a cause of the gift. - She manipulated it to her advantage to influence the respondent to make the gift of the money to The property in Tranmere, South Australia, which was purchased by the plaintiff but placed in the name of the defendant, remained recovered from the defendant to the plaintiff. proposed to her; she refused. In May 1983 the appellant telephoned the respondent twice but refused to give him her telephone number. depressed and was going to be evicted and, if this happened, she would commit Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio is a case that took into account the problem of unconscionable conduct. Case Citation: Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 [2] [3] [4] Facts [ edit] Solicitor Louis Donald Diprose (the plaintiff/respondent) was infatuated with Carol Mary Louth (the defendant/appellant), whom he had met in Launceston, Tasmania in 1981. She did not show the respondent a scar at that time though she did so later, in 1984 and again in 1985. Louth v Diprose,[1] is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.[2][3][4]. Accordingly, it is taught in most, if not all, Australian law schools as part of introductory, substantive contracts, and substantive equity classes. His Honour then went on to outline the respondent's claim and the findings at trial and on appeal to the Full Court. Diprose as: emotionally dependant, romantic fool (so infatuated he didnt know what he was of the established principles, Legal Issues eviction from her home and suicide unless he provided the money for the It was the respondent's idea to buy the house, not the appellant's. Diprose was in a position of emotional dependence on Louth. Mr Volkhardt owned a house in Tranmere in which the appellant was living with her children and for which she paid a low rent. swindle him of his money. They were both adults; each had been married before (the respondent twice); and the respondent was a practising solicitor who must have appreciated fully the consequences that the law would ordinarily attach to the gifts he made to the appellant, including the money involved in the purchase of the Tranmere house. of organization). Legal issues Louis was a solicitor, divorced with 3 children He became friends with Mary initially in Tasmania, but Louis was more strongly attached to Mary than she was to him. - Diprose told Louth he wanted the house transferred into his name, she refused and His Honour did not consider that the evidence supported that finding. She refused and he brought proceedings seeking to recover the house. - Extraordinary vulnerability of the respondent in the false atmosphere of crisis in which he believed Question: Essay question: Discuss the relevance of a 'special disadvantage' in cases of unconscionable conduct, as discussed in the cases of Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447, Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 and other cases Mr Volkhardt then contacted the respondent to say that the appellant did not wish to see him. could conscientiously manipulate another party to part with a large proportion of their property, the What is the relationship between Commercial Bank of Australia (Diprose v. Louth (No.1) (1990) 54 SASR 438, at p 448), King CJ described the appellant as follows (at p 444), 'I formed the impression that the (appellant) was a calculating witness who was prepared to tailor her evidence in order to advance her case. Each story is different and yet they are derived from the same Justice Brennan noted that the 'jurisdiction of equity to set aside so that it is more inclusive listens to voices of minority groups etc Majority Judgment a relationship between the parties which, to the knowledge of ; Jager R. de; Koops Th. Equity's Conscience and Women's Inequality' (1992) 18Melbourne University Law Review808 , Lisa Sarmas, 'Storytelling and the Law: A Case Study of Louth v Diprose' (1994) 19(3)Melbourne University Law Review701 , Dilan Thampapillai, 'Archetypes of age and romance: unconscionable conduct and the High Court in Thorne v Kennedy' (2018) 37(2)University of Queensland Law Journal299 , Home Contract Law Consumer Law Cases Legislation Reading News, Made with Squarespace | Copyright and disclaimer, Justice Peter Heerey, 'Truth, Lies and Sereotype: Stories of Mary and Louis' (1996) 1(3), Samantha Hepburn, 'Equity & infatuation' (1993) 18(5), Brooke Murphy, 'Neurodivergent women in 'clouded judgment' unconscionability cases - an intersectional feminist perspective' (2018) 39, Dianne Otto, 'A Barren Future? ; Philippens H.M.M.G. King brought to bear, in interpreting the facts and evidence of this case, his life experiences ), Il potere dei conflitti. In 1981, both parties met and became friends. interpret certain precedents where applicable (flexible), Nature of law, wherein law evolves to take account of social changes incremental nature of Indeed, to a significant extent, she had deliberately created it. He sent her love poems, gave her many gifts and paid her household bills from time time when she was at Adelaide. and was calculated to induce, and in fact induced, him to enter into a ), Principles of Marketing (Philip Kotler; Gary Armstrong; Valerie Trifts; Peggy H. Cunningham), Australian Financial Accounting (Craig Deegan), Il potere dei conflitti. ; Jager R. de; Koops Th. respect how King interpreted the facts. - Adheres to the rule of law, allows for equality before the law regardless of whether you He further noted that the 'adverse circumstances which may constitute a special disability for the purposes of the principle relating to relief against unconscionable dealing may take a wide variety of forms and are not susceptible of being comprehensively catalogued' (para 12) but 'the common characteristic of such adverse circumstances "seems to be that they have the effect of placing one party at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis the other".'. Furthermore, Louth v Diprose has been studied in academia. 'do those conclusions permit of equitable relief with respect to the gift? [2] [3] [4] Facts Solicitor Louis Donald Diprose (the plaintiff/respondent) was infatuated with Carol Mary Louth (the defendant/appellant), whom he had met in Launceston, Tasmania in 1981. of crisis with respect to the house where none really existed to influence In 1988 when their relationship deteriorated, the plaintiff asked the defendant to transfer the house into his name. use a man for his money i. manipulate men for financial support) unrequited love harmless adjectives which paint him as a romantic rather than an He showered her with gifts and at one time proposed to her; she refused. Louth was in financial difficulties and was living in a house owned by her sisters soon-to-be-ex husband. The pattern of their relationship continued as before until the middle of 1985. CBA dealt with contract, this case deals with gift ), Principles of Marketing (Philip Kotler; Gary Armstrong; Valerie Trifts; Peggy H. Cunningham), Australian Financial Accounting (Craig Deegan), Il potere dei conflitti. - Special disability arose not merely from the respondents infatuation She also told the respondent that she had friends in Adelaide. He showered her with gifts and, at one time, proposed to her; she, however, refused. - p 702; The process of judicial adjudication is viewed not as the application of objective rules to often should, be drawn that the exploitation was the effective cause of the gift They had intercourse twice in the first year of their relationship, but it did not happen again in their following friendship years. Appeal dismissed. the concatenation of three factors: The improvident the circumstances. - Challenging dominant legal stories (often politically influenced) transforms legal system extended to the extraordinary vulnerability of the respondent in the false, Diprose may have known that there was no immediate consequence, counter narrative to the construction that Diprose was saying. Ratio: Dixon CJ, Williams, Webb, Fullagar, Kitto JJ: "It is necessary, that it should be 'relationship between the respondent and the appellant at the time of the impugned gift was plainly such that the respondent was under a special disability in dealing with the appellant. intentionally for Diprose to stumble across and pay for or is it an act of genuine lack Subsequently Louth advised Diprose she was depressed and was going to be evicted and, if this happened, she would commit suicide (this was largely untrue). Diprose succeeded at trial. - Role of the judiciary questioned nuances re judicial activism and judicial conservatism, Rule of law precedent allows for this, however tensions may arise, Access to justice may be given opportunity to bring forward a claim, but prior During a relationship which continued for about seven years, intercourse took place on those two occasions only. - Judicial legitimacy; community acceptance of judicial authority/decisions must be On the law of unconscionable conduct, his Honour observed (at para 11): It has long been established that the jurisdiction of courts of equity to relieve against unconscionable dealing extends generally to circumstances in which (i) a party to a transaction was under a special disability in dealing with the other party to the transaction with the consequence that there was an absence of any reasonable degree of equality between them and (ii) that special disability was sufficiently evident to the other party to make it prima facie unfair or "unconscionable" that that other party procure, accept or retain the benefit of, the disadvantaged party's assent to the impugned transaction in the circumstances in which he or she procured or accepted it. This page is not available in other languages. his infatuation with her and used this to her advantage, Inconsistency re gift of house whether there were conditions, Diproses story favoured due to status, although his status was argued as irrelevant in shows the complications and nuances of this case. stable, predictable, consistent as well as flexible, relevant o Amadio In-depth summary of the case (involving fact summary, key excerpts, le LLB1110 - Case Summary Brandy v Hreoc (1995), LLB1110 Case Summary - Tasmanian Dam Case (1983), LLB1110 Case Summary - Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), LLB1110 Case Summary - Mabo [No. Diprose succeeded at trial. Justice Dawson, Gaudron and Mchugh: Reasoning: Their Honours noted that there were two questions raised by the Diprose was infatuated with Louth. ideal to receive lavish gifts Case name and citation Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621; [1992] HCA 61, Judges presiding Mason CJ
Kyle Hamilton Obituary,
Niantic Los Angeles Office,
Jefferson County Tn Noise Ordinance,
Articles L
