Rowe v The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth [No 2]

[2022] WASCA 28

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Real Property
2. › Torrens system
3. › Caveat
4. › Application to extend operation of caveat
5. › Whether caveator's claim has or may have substance
6. › Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), ss 138B, 138C
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Estoppel by encouragement and acquiescence
5. › Whether assumption of future acquisition of proprietary interest established
6. › Whether assumption fundamentally flawed where canon law precludes individual proprietary interests in ecclesiastical goods
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Proprietary estoppel
4. › Elements of proprietary estoppel
5. › Requirement that plaintiff assume future acquisition of ownership of property
6. › Whether expenditure on another's property without valid assumption creates equitable interest

Quick Take

Where a proprietary estoppel claim is based on an assumption that property will be held by an entity (such as a parish under canon law) that is separate from the claimant, the assumption does not support the claimant's individual proprietary interest. The mere expenditure of money on another's property, without a valid assumption of future proprietary interest, does not create equitable interests in the property.

Case Details

Citation[2022] WASCA 28

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.

Relies on10

2021Rowe v The Roman Catholic Archbishop of PerthWASCA 93
2017Currie v Currie [No 2]WASC 312
2014Sidhu v Van DykeHCA 19
2007Donis & Ors v DonisVSCA 89
and 6 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in