Gibbons v Wright: 1954

(High Court of Australia) Sir Owen Dixon discussed the principle that mental capacity at law varied with the transaction at issue: ‘the mental capacity required by the law in respect of any instrument is relative to the particular transaction which is being effected by means of the instrument, and may be described as the capacity to understand the nature of that transaction when it is explained.’


Sir Owen Dixon


(1954) 91 CLR 423

Cited by:

CitedMasterman-Lister v Brutton and Co, Jewell and Home Counties Dairies (No 1) CA 19-Dec-2002
Capacity for Litigation
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claims. He had earlier settled a claim for damages, but now sought to re-open it, and to claim in negligence against his former solicitors, saying that he had not had sufficient mental capacity at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Health

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.259612