Delaforce v Simpson-Cook

(2010) 78 NSWLR 483; [2010] NSWCA 84

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Estoppel by encouragement
5. › Testamentary promise to leave property by will
6. › Whether unambiguous assurance
7. › Whether reasonable reliance
8. › Whether detriment established
9. › Loss of chance to obtain enforceable court orders as detriment
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Relief
5. › Enforcement of expectation versus compensation for detriment
6. › Whether proportionality is a positive requirement or negative constraint
7. › Whether minimum equity principle applies in Australia after Giumelli v Giumelli
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Testamentary promises
5. › Whether inherent revocability of wills precludes estoppel
6. › Effect of vicissitudes of life on enforceability
1. Succession
2. › Contract to leave property by will
3. › Effect of
4. › Equity enforcing trust on estate
5. › Contingencies affecting enforceability

Quick Take

In proprietary estoppel cases based on clear and unambiguous promises, the prima facie entitlement is enforcement of the expectation, not merely compensation for detriment. Proportionality operates as a negative constraint (enforcement must not be disproportionate) rather than a positive requirement that the plaintiff must prove. Loss of the chance to obtain enforceable court orders, by relying on a promise instead of pursuing litigation, constitutes sufficient detriment to support a proprietary estoppel. The 'minimum equity' principle from Crabb v Arun DC is probably not the law in Australia following Giumelli v Giumelli.