Where a trial judge rejects a party's evidence in its entirety, the party cannot establish detrimental reliance for proprietary estoppel on the basis of that rejected evidence unless it is independently corroborated on the specific element of reliance. Improvements to property that benefit the claimant's own business conducted rent-free on the property may be effectively 'amortised' through long use and may not constitute sufficient detriment for proprietary estoppel. A speculative foregone opportunity from 30 years earlier, unsupported by evidence beyond the rejected party's own testimony, is insufficient to establish unconscionability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.