• Emailenquiry@australialawwriters.com

Equity & Trust Law


Aunty Melanie Smith was 70 and a pensioner. She lived in a small community in the far west of New South Wales and was an Elder of the traditional Guardians of her Country.


September 2022, she travelled to Sydney to stay with her younger sister, Annie, who had been ill. Annie worked as a casual cleaner for $20 per hour. During her stay, Annie introduced Aunty to Shara Evans, a life insurance salesperson for Allgotcha Insurance Ltd. Shara was paid commissions on his sales and earned $100 for every $1,000 of the amount insured, plus a small percentage of the annual premium for as long as the policy lasted – called a ‘trail commission’. Most of the policies he sold were for amounts between $10,000 and $30,000.


Shara had used his charm on Annie, who thought he was wonderful and was flattered by his compliments. She had already bought a policy for $10,000 ‘to pay for her funeral,’ and her premium payments were $10 per week. She did not know that Shara received either a commission or a trail commission on the policies he sold, not had he explained the terms of the policy to her. Annie now tried to persuade Aunty Melanie to take out a similar policy.


Neither Annie nor Aunty Melanie had the opportunity of an education beyond the age of 12. Both were part of the ‘Stolen Generations’ and had been taken from their family at a young age and raised on a Church Mission. At the age of 14, Aunty Melanie was sent to work in the kitchen on a sheep station and at 15, Annie was sent to work as a helper to a children’s nanny. Both were inexperienced in financial matters. They watched TV, but did not read very much. At home, Aunty Melanie mainly spoke the language of her people. In order to persuade Aunty Melanie to buy a policy, Annie used all of the arguments she could think of,  including emotional pressure. Shara supported Annie and used his salesperson’s techniques – including asking questions such as - ‘How would your children pay for your funeral if you died?’


Shara, however, did not explain the terms of the policy to Aunty Melanie or suggest she ask someone to help her.  Nor did he explain that if Aunty Melanie missed 2 weekly payments she would be charged a penalty of 2 weekly premiums and if she wanted to cancel the policy at any time, she would be required to pay $100. Aunty Melanie finally gave in and signed the proposal document.


Discuss the equitable principles/doctrines raised by the issues in this problem.




In this case, the priMelanie equitable principle at issue is the doctrine of unconscionable conduct. Under Australian law,[1] unconscionable conduct refers to unfair or oppressive behaviour that it offends the court’s conscience. It is a principle designed to protect vulnerable or disadvantaged individuals from being taken advantage of by more powerful or knowledgeable parties.


The doctrine of unconscionable conduct is codified in the Australian Consumer Law, which sets out a number of factors that can be used to determine whether conduct is unconscionable. These include how strong one party is compared to another in negotiations, the ability of the disadvantaged party to protect their own interests, the degree of pressure or coercion used to induce the indigent party to agree to the transaction, and whether the terms of the transaction are unfair or unreasonable.


There have been many cases in Australia that have applied this doctrine in a variety of contexts. One notable example is the case of Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio.[2] In this case, an elderly couple who spoke limited English were induced by their son to guarantee a business loan without understanding the full extent of their liability. The High Court ruled that the bank’s conduct in failing to explain the nature of the transaction to the couple, who were clearly vulnerable, was unconscionable.


Another example is the case of Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited,[3] which alleged that ANZ Bank had charged excessive fees for certain credit card transactions. The High Court ruled that ANZ’s actions were not reprehensible, but the case illustrates the factors that courts will consider when applying the doctrine.


In the judgement of ASIC v Kobelt,[4] the Federal Court ruled that a car dealership had been involved in unconscionable conduct by selling a car to a young, financially vulnerable Indigenous man who had a mild intellectual disability and did not understand the terms of the contract. The court determined that the dealership benefited from the customer’s vulnerability by failing to explain the contract terms in a way that he could understand and by including unfair terms in the contract.


[1] Chief Justice Allsop AO, ‘Unconscionability - In equity and in statute’, (Federal Court of Australia, 2019) < https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/speeches-former-judges/chief-justice-allsop/allsop-cj-20190923>

[2] Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447.

[3] Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (2016) 258 CLR 525.

[4] ASIC v Kobelt (2019) 368 ALR 1. 


There are certain classes of relationship in which unconscionable conduct arise.

Undue influence is simply one kind of fraud, and it may present itself in a number of ways, but it is always rooted in equitable fraud.[5]

Annie and Shara may have unduly influenced aunty Melanie to purchase the insurance policy. It occurs when one person exerts pressure on another to enter into a transaction that is not in their best interest. Aunty Melanie was vulnerable due to her lack of education and financial knowledge, and the emotional pressure exerted by Annie and Shara may have been enough to sway her decision.


In this principle, the burden is placed on the more powerful side to demonstrate that the deal was just, equitable, and feasible: “The burden of demonstrating the impartiality of the deal is placed on the person seeking to benefit from the contractual agreement.”[6]


In Aboody v Ryan,[7] the court reiterated the significance of the equitable principle of undue influence in the context of vulnerable parties, such as older people or those with limited education or experience in financial matters. In this judgement, the court stated that the plaintiff was excessively persuaded by the defendant, who had a position of power and authority over her and used it to convince her to make a deal that was not in her best interests.


Similarly, in Johnson v. Buttress,[8] the court emphasised the importance of the equitable principle of unconscionable conduct, particularly in cases involving vulnerable parties. In this case, the court held that the defendant had benefitted from the plaintiff’s age and mental state to enter into a transaction that was not in her best interests. The court noted that such conduct was against ethics and conscience, so the deal was set aside.


Both cases highlight the importance of protecting vulnerable parties from exploitation and abuse in transactions involving financial matters. The courts recognise that such parties may not have the knowledge, experience, or resources to understand the consequences of their actions fully and may be susceptible to undue influence or unconscionable conduct. Therefore, the equitable principles of these two play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and justice in such transactions.

[5]. Symons v. Williams (1875) 1 VLR (E) 199, 216.

[6]. Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362, 428–9.

[7] Aboody v Ryan (2012) NSWCA 395.

[8] Johnson v. Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113.


Unfair contract terms

Under the ACL, any term of a consumer contract proven unjust shall be null and unenforceable. Section 24 of the ACL[9] defines an unfair term creates a substantial disparity in the parties’ contractual rights and responsibilities, is not obliged to protect the genuine aims of the party benefitting from the phrase and would lead to economic or other damage to the other the party if depended on.


In the case of Aunty Melanie, the penalty for missed payments and the fee for the early termination may be considered unfair terms under the ACL. As a result, these provisions would be unenforceable, and Aunty Melanie would not be liable for these charges if she decided to terminate the contract or missed a payment.


There have been several cases in Australia where courts have found contract terms unfair under the ACL. For example, in ACCC v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd.,[10] the Federal Court held that several terminologies in the regular form of contracts used by the waste management company were unfair and, therefore, void. The court found that the terms were one-sided, harsh, lacked transparency and could not be enforced.


Similarly, in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v AGL Sales Pty Ltd.,[11] the Federal Court found several terms in the energy company’s retail contracts unfair and void. The court held that the terms were ambiguous and unclear, creating a considerable disparity in the parties’ rights and duties.


Fiduciary relationship can also be interpreted from this study as A fiduciary relationship where one party, known as the fiduciary, gives a different party (the recipient or beneficiary) a duty of trust and allegiance is expected to act in the beneficiary’s greatest good.


In the case of Warman International Ltd v Dwyer,[12] the High Court of Australia concluded that a fiduciary relationship develops where one party has the power to affect the legal or practical interests of another party and that the fiduciary owes a duty of trust and allegiance to act in the best interests of the beneficiary.

[9] Australian Consumer Law s 24.

[10] ACCC v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd. (2017) FCA 1224.

[11] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v AGL Sales Pty Ltd (2020) FCA 1627.

[12] Warman International Ltd v Dwyer (1995) 182 CLR 544.


The question of a defaulting fiduciary causing damages to a beneficiary emerges concerning Shara Evans’ actions that he has to pay compensation in the case of Nocton v Lord Ashburton,[13] The House of Lords ruled that damages for equitable fraud were not given, rather than “equitable compensation,” or return of what the petitioner lost. Similarly, in this scenario, Aunty Melanie could seek equitable compensation to recover the money she lost as a result of Shara’s breach of fiduciary duty.


In conclusion, the case study discussed raises important questions about whether the conduct of Allgotcha Insurance Ltd and their salesperson Shara Evans was unconscionable and whether they breached their fiduciary duty towards Aunty Melanie. The equitable principle of unconscionable conduct aims to prevent unfair and oppressive conduct in commercial dealings. In this case, Aunty Melanie was a vulnerable person who lacked financial literacy and was subject to emotional pressure from her sister and the salesperson. Furthermore, the terms of the policy were not clearly explained to her. As such, it can be argued that the conduct of Allgotcha Insurance Ltd and Shara Evans was unconscionable, and they took advantage of Aunty Melanie’s vulnerability.


Moreover, the fiduciary relationship between Aunty Melanie and Shara Evans implies a high level of trust and assurance, and the fiduciary has a duty to work in the most significant interests of the client. In this case, it appears that Shara Evans did not act in the best interests of Aunty Melanie, and instead, his conduct was motivated by his own financial gain. As such, it can be argued that Shara Evans breached his fiduciary duty towards Aunty Melanie.


In light of the above, it is evident that the conduct of Allgotcha Insurance Ltd and its salesperson Shara Evans raises significant ethical and legal concerns. While it is important to encourage financial literacy among vulnerable groups, preventing predatory conduct by financial service providers is equally important. As such, regulatory authorities must enforce the principles of unconscionable conduct and fiduciary duty to protect vulnerable consumers and ensure fairness in commercial dealings.

[13] Lionel Smith, ‘Perspective Fiduciary Duties,’ (2018) 37(2) University of Queensland Law Journal, 261

Whatsapp Icon