← All Authorities
Australia Leading Case unconscionabilityundue influence

Thorne v Kennedy

(2017) 263 CLR 85
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Prenuptial agreements set aside for unconscionability and undue influence where inequality of bargaining power existed between the parties.

Key Principle

unconscionable conduct and undue influence; prenuptial agreements set aside for unconscionability where there was inequality of bargaining power

Area of Law

trusts

Related Cases

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392

A casino operator's mere knowledge of a patron's pathological gambling does not constitute unconscionable conduct absent deliberate exploitation of that special disadvantage.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90

A supplier's high-pressure door-to-door sales tactics targeting elderly women constituted unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (No 2) (2012) 200 FCR 296

FCAFC restated Australian law on knowing/dishonest assistance in breach of fiduciary duty, adopting an objective dishonesty standard based on ordinary decent people.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Thorne v Kennedy and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Thorne v Kennedy