The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, holding that the trial judge provided adequate reasons by addressing the substance of the applicant's case without needing to deal with every particular submission or provide transcript references. On proprietary estoppel, the Court confirmed that inconsistent and imprecise evidence of representations — even in a family context — cannot satisfy the 'clear and unequivocal promise' requirement from Kramer v Stone, and no authority was identified to support a relaxed standard for family representations. On cross-examination, the Court held that prolonged and robust questioning of a key witness on credit did not constitute improper conduct under s 41 of the Evidence Act 2008 where the trial judge intervened appropriately at relevant points.
The full text is available to signed-in members.