Bar-Mordecai v Hillston

[2004] NSWCA 65

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Undue Influence
3. › Presumed undue influence
4. › Doctor-patient relationship
5. › Whether presumption rebutted
6. › Whether de facto relationship displaced presumption
7. › Whether gifts were independent and well-understood acts of donor
1. Succession
2. › Family Provision
3. › Eligible person
4. › De facto relationship
5. › Whether living with deceased as husband on bona fide domestic basis
6. › Composite expression not to be dissected into discrete elements
7. › Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 6(1)
1. Succession
2. › Family Provision
3. › Extension of time
4. › Whether sufficient cause shown for late application
5. › Deliberate pursuit of alternative false claim
6. › Prejudice to estate
7. › Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW), s 16
1. De Facto Relationships
2. › Definition
3. › Whether relationship existed
4. › Factors relevant to determination
5. › Relationship changing over time
6. › Bona fide domestic basis
7. › Whether exploitative relationship precluded de facto status

Quick Take

The existence of a de facto relationship between a doctor and patient does not displace the presumption of undue influence arising from the doctor-patient relationship; it is relevant to the assessment of the circumstances of gifts but does not remove the need for close investigation. The concept of 'bona fide domestic basis' is not lost by bouts of selfishness or infidelity; its thrust is to exclude sham relationships. A relationship may change and develop over time such that its legal character at one point may not represent its character at another.