{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

3 after 14 years of working for no wages and building

Info iconThis preview shows pages 7–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
3. After 14 years of working for no wages and building a house (used money, detriment), his parents told him to leave after he left his wife. 4. Supreme Court of WA (at 1 st instance) held R was entitled to have the land conveyed, either on basis of CT or proprietary estoppel. Parents appealed, arguing the remedy was excessive. GIUMELLI V GIUMELLI: HCA 1. Issue: expectation relief or relief of detriment? 2. Prima facie, it should be expectation relief (i.e., enforcing the promise), BUT it depends on an assessment of the justice of the situation. 1. Courts don’t want to create a situation where parents and brother are disadvantaged by giving Robert all the land (expectation damages). 7
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
8 3. Before granting a CT, court should consider if a lesser equitable remedy is appropriate. 4. In this case there were difficulties with access to the property, effect on third parties. 5. R was awarded damages based on the value of the promised lot. DONIS V DONIS – 2007 1. Is a unanimous decision of Victorian Court of Appeal. 2. Victor and Rosa Donis owned 40 acres of land on outskirts of Melbourne. There were already two houses on the block. They told Suzie that their son and she would be RP’s of one of the properties. Suzie didn’t like the house or area, wanted to be closer to her parents, but the promises of the Donis’ swayed her. She also agreed to start a family, quitting her teaching job. The marriage broke down, Donis’ told her to go, she didn’t, and one night they cleaned the house out. Sold it to a property developer for $2+million! She sued, got $600,000 from SC of Vic, but parent’s appealed, arguing it was an excessive payout based on her detriment and reliance. 3. Nettle J said that equitable estoppel gives you whatever relief is necessary to take away the detriment (reliance based). BUT, took the HC in Giumelli where the expectation created by D’s conduct relates to an interest in property. Prima facie P is entitles to have the promise made good Doesn’t have to be proportionality between the detrimental reliance and the interest gained. HOWEVER, there may be cases where the expectation is unreasonable and is out of ALL proportion to the detriment! Take into account the number of considerations, such as cost of sale, mortgage repayments, interest due after separation. Then have to ask if final sum is grossly unreasonable. That is, if expectation is vague, then probably unreasonable to get the final sum. In this case, her expectation wasn’t extravagant (vague). SO… 1. The relationship between proprietary estoppel and CTs is quite close, but came about at different times, and in some cases will result in same outcome. 2. BUT, PE seems to be broader. Anything that amounts to detrimental reliance, even without benefit flowing back to promise giver, can result in r 8
Background image of page 8
9 TOPIC 2: CO-OWNERSHIP CO-OWNERSHIP 1. Co-ownership means ownership of an interest in land or personal property by more than one person at the same time
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page7 / 47

3 After 14 years of working for no wages and building a...

This preview shows document pages 7 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online