Emotional dependence of an elderly parent on an adult child, combined with limited education and reliance on the child for advice, does not of itself establish special disadvantage for the purposes of unconscionable conduct where the parent understood the nature and effect of the transactions and entered into them voluntarily. The improvidence of family transactions must be assessed having regard to both tangible benefits (property interests, accommodation) and intangible benefits (proximity to family, retention of pension entitlements). Banks dealing with ordinary parent-child transactions are not required to assume unconscionability absent specific indicators of disability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.