Representations by a co-owner about future loan repayment from development profits, made in the context of a projected short timeframe, do not constitute a clear and unequivocal representation precluding the co-owner from later seeking an order for sale under s 66G. Unconscionability does not operate as a free-standing ground for refusing such an order but requires further definition through established equitable doctrines such as estoppel or fiduciary duty. Co-ownership and joint pursuit of rezoning do not, without more, create a fiduciary duty not to seek sale.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 52 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 52 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.