Witham v Witham

[2000] WASC 236

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Promissory estoppel
4. › Representations between proprietor and relative concerning farming land
5. › Representation that relative could have possession until land sold
6. › Whether representation clear and unambiguous
7. › Whether detrimental reliance established
8. › Whether unconscionable to resile from representation
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Promissory estoppel
4. › Certainty of terms
5. › Contrast between contract law and estoppel in certainty of terms
6. › Whether representation of sale at 'reduced price' sufficiently clear to found estoppel
7. › Whether court required to fill gap parties never closed
1. Equity
2. › Equitable estates and interests
3. › Right of pre-emption
4. › Distinction between right of pre-emption and option to purchase
5. › Whether right of pre-emption confers interest in land
6. › Whether grantee acquires equitable interest after right triggered
7. › Depends on terms of bargain
1. Real Property
2. › Recovery of possession
3. › Lease expired
4. › Defence of promissory estoppel
5. › Fashioning of equitable relief
6. › Minimum intervention to avoid detriment

Quick Take

A representation that property can be purchased at 'a reduced price', without any mechanism for determining the quantum of the reduction, is too uncertain to found a promissory estoppel. The certainty requirement for promissory estoppel parallels or exceeds that for contract formation. However, a representation that a person may remain in possession of land until it is sold is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to found an estoppel where there is detrimental reliance.