Bahnik v Budimir (No 2)

The Court held that where a testamentary promise of 'all my possessions' was established by proprietary estoppel, the plaintiff was entitled to the entire net estate (approximately $8.7 million) by way of constructive trust, rejecting the defendant's argument that relief should be capped at the plaintiff's earlier estimate of the estate's value ($2.9 million). The Court confirmed that proportionality operates only as a negative restraint — relief fulfilling the expectation is granted unless out of all proportion to the detriment — and that where detriment involves life-changing decisions of a profoundly personal nature (years of care for an elderly person), it cannot be meaningfully compared in monetary terms to the estate's value. On costs, the Court held that an administrator who obtained s 63 judicial advice to defend proceedings was entitled to indemnity costs from the estate under UCPR r 42.25, notwithstanding that she was the sole intestacy beneficiary, because she had properly discharged her duties as administrator and was entitled to put the plaintiff to proof.