A claim to the proceeds of sale of property, as distinct from a claim to equitable title to the property itself, is not a proprietary interest capable of being protected by a caveat. Statements of testamentary intention by a deceased, without promissory character or connection to alleged consideration, do not establish a prima facie case of testamentary contract. In the family/domestic context, acts of reliance that are reasonably explicable by family obligation will not readily support a proprietary estoppel. A caveat that does not describe any proprietary interest cannot be amended under s 138C(2)(a)(iii) TLA to claim an entirely different interest, as this would constitute a new caveat rather than a better description of the interest claimed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.