1A solicitor who believes himself to be acting solely for particular clients, and whose advice adopts the recommendations of an independent barrister, is not rendered non-independent for unconscionability purposes merely because a third party was recorded as a client in the retainer agreement, where no actual conflict affected the quality of advice given.
2Transfers of valuable assets within a family estate planning context are not necessarily improvident where they are rational steps recommended by professional advisors to achieve legitimate objectives such as asset protection, even if made at nominal consideration, provided the transferors retain appropriate protections such as a life tenancy.
3To establish unconscionable exploitation of special disadvantage, it is insufficient to show that the advantaged party knew the other had not received independent advice; it must be shown that any lack of independence actually impeded the giving of full and frank advice, and that the advantaged party knew or ought to have known of that actual consequence.
Case Details
Citation[2025] NSWSC 1603
CourtNSWSC
JurisdictionNew South Wales
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
