''Louth v Diprose'', is an Australian contract law and equity case, in which unconscionable conduct is considered.

Facts

Solicitor Louis Donald Diprose (the plaintiff/respondent) was infatuated with Carol Mary Louth (the defendant/appellant), whom he had met in Launceston,

Tasmania Tasmania (; palawa kani: ''Lutruwita'') is an island States and territories of Australia, state of Australia. It is located to the south of the Mainland Australia, Australian mainland, and is separated from it by the Bass Strait. The sta ...

in 1981. He showered her with gifts and, at one time, proposed to her; she, however, refused. Subsequently in 1985 the defendant informed the plaintiff that she was depressed and was going to be evicted and, if this happened, she would commit suicide (this was largely untrue). In response, the plaintiff agreed to buy her a house and, at her insistence, put it in her name. In 1988 when their relationship deteriorated, the plaintiff asked the defendant to transfer the house into his name. She refused and he brought proceedings seeking to recover the house. At the trial in the

Supreme Court of South Australia The Supreme Court of South Australia is the superior court of the Australian state of South Australia. The Supreme Court is the highest South Australian court in the Australian court hierarchy. It has unlimited jurisdiction within the state in ...

, the

court of first instance A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually heard by higher courts with the power of appellate review (appellate courts). ...

, the plaintiff won, with

King King is a royal title given to a male monarch. A king is an Absolute monarchy, absolute monarch if he holds unrestricted Government, governmental power or exercises full sovereignty over a nation. Conversely, he is a Constitutional monarchy, ...

CJ holding that for the defendant to retain the house and land would be unconscionable and thus the plaintiff was beneficially entitled to the land. The defendant subsequently appealed to the Full Court of South Australia again, however, the defendant lost on appeal, with Jacobs and Legoe J forming the majority and Matheson J dissenting. The defendant then filed special leave for an appeal to the

High Court of Australia The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation. The High Court was establi ...

, which was granted.

Judgment

The appeal was dismissed. The property in Tranmere,

South Australia South Australia (commonly abbreviated as SA) is a States and territories of Australia, state in the southern central part of Australia. With a total land area of , it is the fourth-largest of Australia's states and territories by area, which in ...

, which was purchased by the plaintiff but placed in the name of the defendant, remained recovered from the defendant to the plaintiff.

Impact

''Louth v Diprose'' remains an important case in Australian contract law and equity and extending the scope of unconscionable conduct, from ''

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio ''Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio'',. is a seminal case in Australian contract law and Equity (law), equity, in which the High Court held that unconscionable dealing due to a lack of knowledge or education and the consequent imbalanc ...

''.. Accordingly, it is taught in most, if not all, Australian law schools as part of introductory, substantive contracts, and substantive equity classes. Furthermore, ''Louth v Diprose'' has been studied in academia. The purportedly limited presentation of the appellant's case has been noted.Moles R., Sangha B. (1995.
"Gendered Stereotypes and the "Facts""
''Flinders Journal of Law Reform'', 1(1).

References

{{Reflist, 30em 1992 in Australian law 1992 in case law Australian contract case law High Court of Australia cases