Nelson v Nelson; 9 Nov 1995

References: (1995) 184 CLR 538, [1995] HCA 25, (1995) 132 ALR 133, (1995) 70 ALJR 47, [1996] ANZ Conv R 280, (1995) 19 Leg Rep 14
Links: Austlii
Coram: Deane, Dawson, Toohey, McHugh, Gummoww JJ
Ratio:High Court of Australia McHugh J spoke of the so called ‘reliance rule’: ‘The [reliance] rule has no regard to the legal and equitable rights of the parties, the merits of the case, the effect of the transaction in undermining the policy of the relevant legislation or the question whether the sanctions imposed by the legislation sufficiently protect the purpose of the legislation. Regard is had only to the procedural issue; and it is that issue and not the policy of the legislation or the merits of the parties which determines the outcome. Basing the grant of legal remedies on an essentially procedural criterion which has nothing to do with the equitable positions of the parties or the policy of the legislation is unsatisfactory, particularly when implementing a doctrine which is founded on public policy.’

Last Update: 26-Jun-16
Ref: 566001