Browne v Browne

[2019] WASCA 1

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Relief
5. › Whether immediate transfer of property appropriate means to protect plaintiff's expectations
6. › Whether clean break required
7. › Relevance of promisor's demonstrated propensity to defeat expectations
8. › Whether relief disproportionate to detriment
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Relief
5. › Third party interests
6. › Whether potential claims under Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) preclude immediate transfer
7. › Whether potential operation of statute bars equitable claim
8. › Family Provision Act 1972 (WA), s 6
1. Courts and Judges
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether primary judge gave adequate reasons for ordering immediate conveyance rather than transfer upon death
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Whether House v The King standard applies to relief for proprietary estoppel
4. › Whether moulding of equitable relief is discretionary
5. › Whether question admits of single correct answer or range of outcomes

Quick Take

Where a promisor has demonstrated a propensity to defeat the promisee's expectations and the relationship has broken down, immediate transfer of property (a 'clean break') may be the appropriate relief for proprietary estoppel, even where the original promise was testamentary in nature. The potential operation of the Family Provision Act does not bar an equitable estoppel claim, and the prejudice to potential Family Provision Act claimants is relevant only as a discretionary factor that must be supported by evidence of the claimants' financial circumstances and the insufficiency of the estate. The standard of appellate review applicable to the moulding of proprietary estoppel relief (House v The King or correctness) remains unresolved.