SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(SC) 57

Privy Council At New South Wales
Sir Lyman Poore Duff, Macmillan , Russell of Killowen , Justice Lords Atkin, JJ.
Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Ltd. and another -Appellant
Versus
Francis Henry Bridgewater -Resopndent
Appeal No. 61 of 1935
Decided On : 16-10-1936

Advocates Appeared:
Kenelm Preedy, H.H. Mason , W. Barton, F.R. Evershed

A purchase of a reversionary interest at an undervalue may be set aside if unfair dealing is present, particularly where a disparity in bargaining power and lack of competent advice create a presumption of fraud, shifting the burden to the purchaser to prove the transaction was fair and reasonable.

Headnote:(A) Conveyancing Act - Section 30 - Purchase of reversionary interest - Good faith and absence of fraud or unfair dealing - Undervalue as a material element - Presumption of fraud arising from weakness of one party and advantage taken by the other - Burden of proof on the party claiming the benefit of the contract to show the transaction was fair, just, and reasonable.

(B) Protection of expectant heirs - Inadequacy of price coupled with inexperience and absence of competent advice is sufficient to invoke equitable protection.

Facts of the case:
A young man, heavily indebted to a money-lender, sold his expectant interests in two estates to said money-lender at a substantial undervalue. The seller was in urgent need of cash and received minimal legal advice from a solicitor who merely explained the documents without advising against the sale or seeking better terms. The buyer was also the seller's creditor, and the property being sold already served as security for a large debt.

Findings of Court:
The price paid was substantially below the true value of the interests sold. The transaction was not made in good faith and involved unfair dealing due to the relative positions of the parties. The buyer failed to establish affirmatively that the transaction was fair, just, and reasonable.

Issues: Whether the sale of reversionary interests at a substantial undervalue, conducted by a creditor purchasing from an indebted and inexperienced expectant heir without adequate legal protection, constitutes "unfair dealing" under the relevant statute.

Ratio Decidendi: While undervalue alone does not invalidate a purchase of a reversionary interest, where there is a disparity in bargaining power (such as between a creditor and a debtor) and a lack of independent, competent advice, a presumption of fraud—defined as the unconscientious use of power arising from these circumstances—arises. In such cases, the burden shifts to the purchaser to prove the transaction was fair, just, and reasonable.

Result: Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal partially allowed to vary the decree.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • equity
    • unconscionable bargains
      • expectant heirs
      • reversionary interests
  • property law
    • wills and estates
      • testamentary dispositions
  • contract law
    • assignment
      • life insurance policies
  • statutory interpretation
    • conveyancing act

Lord Russell of Killowen:-

In this case their Lordships have to advise His Majesty in relation to an appeal by the executors of one Bertram Murray, deceased and a cross-appeal by one Francis Henry Bridgewater, in an action instituted for the purpose of setting aside a sale by Bridgewater to Murray of Bridgewater's expectant interests under certain wills. Murray was a money-lender who carried on business at Sydney. Bridgewater is a young Englishman who was born on 29th September 1906, and who at the age of 17 arrived in South Australia as an assisted emigrant. For some three or four years he drifted about from one job to another in South Australia and Victoria. Eventually he arrived in Sydney at the end of the year 1927, with about £2 in his pocket.

He had however also a letter (dated 4th October 1927) which he had received from an uncle in England, in which references were made to his interests under the wills of his father and his grandfather. Armed with this letter he went to see Murray whose advertisement he had read in the papers. Murray gave him a few shillings, and cabled to his own solicitors in London (Light and Fulton) for information. In reply he received a cable on 9th February 1928, in the following terms.

Bridgewater entitled share value roughly £4,000 grand-father's estate on attaining 25, also three-fifths father's estate on attaining 27 subject life rent in one quarter no information yet value.

On receipt of this cable Murray began to make advances from time to time to Bridgewater on the security of his interests under the wills, with the result that on 18th September 1928, there were outstanding the following securities on those interests, viz.: A mortgage dated 15th February 1928, to secure the payment of a principal sum of £675; a further charge dated 21st February 1928, to secure the payment of a further principal sum of £175 s.10, and a further charge dated 22nd March 1928, to secure the payment of a further principal sum of £1,309 s.10. In each case the principal sum secured included interest for one year at the rate of 30 per cent. per annum on the moneys advanced and such principal sum if not repaid at the expiration of 12 months carried interest at the rate of 20 per cent. per annum. The Judge who tried the action found that the terms of the mortgage loans were, in the circumstances of the case reasonable, and no complaint is made in regard thereto. At the end of March 1928, Bridgewater went to England; he arrived back in Australia in August 1928, with little or no money but he was able to secure some employment. At this point it will be convenient to indicate the nature of his interest under the wills of his grandfather Francis Matthew Bridgewater and his father Francis Franklin Bridgewater. Under his grandfather's will one-eighth of the residuary estate was held upon trust as to one-half for his father for life, and after his father's death upon trust for his father's issue as his father should by will appoint, and as to the other half upon trust that the trustees should apply the income during Bridgewater's minority towards his advancement and education as they might in their uncontrolled discretion think proper, and subject thereto (the will proceeded) :

My trustees shall hold the said remaining half share upon trust for my said grandson absolutely upon his attaining the age of 25 years and in the event of my said grandson dying before he shall attain the age of 25 years or after that age without leaving issue capable of taking a vested interest in such one-half share, then upon trust for all and every other the children of my said son Francis Franklin Bridgewater who shall be born within 21 years after my death as and when he or she shall attain the age of 25 years or if a daughter shall previously marry and if more than one in equal shares and failing such other children of the said Francis Franklin Bridgewater then upon trust for all my other children or their issue living at my death other than the







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top