Clancy & Anor v Salienta Pty Ltd & Ors

[2000] NSWCA 248

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Proprietary Estoppel
3. › Third category proprietary estoppel
4. › Improvements to land in expectation of acquiring interest
5. › Whether estoppel available where dealings governed by binding contract
6. › Whether reasonable to expect interest on terms other than those stipulated in contract
1. Equity
2. › Constructive Trust
3. › Baumgartner equity
4. › Joint endeavour
5. › Whether unconscionable conduct established
6. › Whether Baumgartner equity available in commercial context governed by binding contract
1. Restitution
2. › Unjust Enrichment
3. › Improvements to land by defaulting purchaser
4. › Whether defaulting purchaser entitled to compensation for permanent improvements
5. › Whether entitlement automatic or dependent on unconscionability
6. › Instalment contracts for sale of land
1. Equity
2. › Relief Against Forfeiture
3. › Purchaser's interest in land
4. › Defaulting purchaser unwilling to complete at contract price
5. › Whether relief available where purchaser unable or unwilling to pay purchase price

Quick Take

A defaulting purchaser under a contract for sale of land has no automatic entitlement to recover the value of permanent improvements made to the property. Recovery depends on establishing either unconscionability (that it would be unconscionable for the vendor to retain the benefit of improvements without compensation) or unjust enrichment. The cases previously cited as supporting an automatic entitlement (Lexane v Highfern, Sandeman v Wilson, Rawson v Hobbs) do not clearly establish such a right. Proprietary estoppel is not available where the parties' dealings are governed by binding contracts specifying the terms on which the property may be acquired.