About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


45 U. Queensland L.J. 1 (2026)

handle is hein.journals/qland45 and id is 1 raw text is: RESCUING I FIDUCIARY' UNDUE INFLUENCE LAW IN AUSTRALIA? Wu v Wu [2024] ACTCA 8 AND Wu V Wu [NO 21 [2024] ACTCA 29 RICK BIGWOOD* I CASE OUTLINE Mr and Mrs Wu were married for 55 years until Mrs Wu passed away in 2018. They had two daughters, Karen and Angela, the latter being the 'favoured' of the two. The family home, owned jointly by Mr and Mrs Wu, was in O'Malley, a suburb of Canberra. In 2009, the home was giftedi to Angela, who was then living abroad. At the time of the disposition, Mr Wu was 85 years old; he had a poor command of English, was extremely deferential to Mrs Wu and dependent on her for financial decisions and the management of his assets, and had no significant assets apart from the O'Malley property; he also received no independent legal or financial advice in relation to the proposed transfer. In 2020, MrWu commenced proceedings for equitable relief in relation to the 2009 transfer and registration.2 Although the bases for relief were not clearly pleaded doctrinally by counsel for Mr Wu at trial, when the matter reached the Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal3 it was determined that Mr Wu was relying on two alternative vitiating grounds: (1) Angela became beneficial owner of the O'Malley property as a volunteer when there had been causative 'undue influence' by Mrs Wu over Mr Wu, and so she was vulnerable to losing the benefit of the transaction based on principles expounded in authorities such as Bridgeman v Green4 and Bank of New South Wales v Rogers;5 and/or (2) Angela had acquired the transfer as a result of her own 'unconscionable conduct' with respect to her Academic Dean and Head of School, Sir Gerard Brennan Chair in Law, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Although the transfer was for a stated consideration of $1.225 million, which Angela never paid, at trial it was found that the transaction was a gift. Wu v Wu [2022] ACTSC 360. Wu v Wu [2024] ACTCA 8 ('Wu [No iI'). 4 (1757) 97 ER 22. 5 (1941) 65 CLR 42. DOT: 10.38127/uqlj.17245