Blomley v Ryan [1956] HCA 81

Appl AS Wie nerial Carel mi ena jak a

HARE 15 CER

362 ay Cons te uth v Gao. _ {Cec y CG CFons ees

Soul Tweed EON Heads Rughy Gow dt Leaguey Cole

Gites 3s

SWER 113

(ES Ge (in A" le,

oe

Heidi (Pete,

fi. Bie ae COURT fee (1954-1956, g Qe 'a

Lip S75 (Bits

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

BLOMLEY 3 : 7 A 3 APPELLANT ; PLAINTIFF, AND RYAN : otk ies Sie - . REsponpent. DEFENDANT,

H.C. or A. Equity—Contract for sale and purchase of grazing property—Suit for specific perform.

1954-1956, Ww Sypney, 1954, June 8-11; July 26-29; Aug. 27; Sept. 1; Oct. 5, 8,11;

Dec. 17

Taylor J.

1955, Aug. 30, 31; Sept. 1, 2,53 Nov. 5, 9 1956, Mar. 28.

MeTiernan, Fullagar and Kitto JJ.

ance brought by purchaser—V endor aged and affected by long bout of rum drinking —Claim to set aside contract—Unconscionable bargain—Constructive fraud— Circumstances in which courts of equity will grant relief.

Held, by McTiernan and Fullagar JJ., Kitto J. dissenting, that upon the evidence adduced before him in a suit for specific performance brought in the original jurisdiction of the Court by the purchaser under a contract for the sale and purchase of a grazing property Taylor J. was justified in refusing the relief sought and in ordering instead at the instance of the vendor that the said contract be set aside upon the ground that it was an unconscionable bargain such that a court of equity would not enforce.

Discussion of the nature of equitable fraud and of the circumstances in which equity will relieve against unconscionable bargains.

Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen (1751) 2 Ves. Sen. 125 [28 E.R. 82]; Earl of Aylesford v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App. 484; Clark v. Malpas (1862) 31 Beav. 80 [54 E.R. 1067]; 4 De G. F. & J. 401 [45 E.R. 1328]; Longmate v. Ledger (1860) 2 Giff. 157 (66 E.R. 67]; Baker v. Monk (1864) 33 Beav. 419 [55 E.R. 430]; 4 De G. J. & 8. 388 [46 E.R. 968] and Fry v. Lane (1888) 40 Ch. D. 312, referred to.