Donis & Ors v Donis

(2007) 19 VR 577; [2007] VSCA 89

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Promise to transfer interest in real property
5. › Reliance and detriment
6. › Remedy
7. › Minimum equity to do justice
8. › Whether promisee prima facie entitled to fulfilment of promise
9. › Whether relief disproportionate to detriment
10. › Whether gratuitous nature of promise relevant
11. › Whether assumption marriage would endure reduced obligation
12. › Whether effect on third parties warranted reduction
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Detriment
5. › Nature of detriment
6. › Whether detriment confined to financial expenditure
7. › Whether life-changing decisions with irreversible consequences constitute sufficient detriment
8. › Whether detriment must constitute consideration
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Issues not apparent from pleadings litigated at trial
4. › Failure to amend
5. › Whether failure to amend precludes judgment on facts as emerged
6. › Whether terms of permission to litigate unpleaded issues should include order to amend
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Discretionary decision
4. › Whether House v The King principles apply to proprietary estoppel relief

Quick Take

In proprietary estoppel cases involving clear promises to confer property interests, the promisee is prima facie entitled to fulfilment of the promise, not merely compensation for detriment. The gratuitous nature of the promise is irrelevant. Where the promise was unconditional, the fact that it was made in the expectation that a marriage would endure does not relieve the promisor of the obligation if the marriage fails. Detriment involving life-changing decisions with irreversible personal consequences (such as marrying, becoming pregnant, and giving up a career) is beyond the measure of money and justifies substantial fulfilment of the promise. The English 'proportionality' approach to minimum equity does not apply in Australia where the promise is clear and specific.