Ashton v Pratt

The case of *Ashton v Pratt* involved a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Ashton, and the respondents, Ms. Pratt and her two children. The core of the disagreement concerned the existence and enforceability of alleged oral agreements made between Mr. Ashton and Ms. Pratt, relating to financial support and the establishment of a trust for their children. The matter was heard on appeal before Bathurst CJ, McColl and Meagher JJA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the parties intended to create legal relations in respect of the alleged oral agreements, particularly given the domestic and social context of their relationship. The court also had to consider the certainty of the terms of these agreements, the application of the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, and whether any unconscionable conduct had occurred. Furthermore, the court examined principles of promissory and equitable estoppel, including the requirement for a clear assumption or representation, the nature of the detriment suffered, and whether estoppel could be used offensively. Finally, the court considered whether a trust had been created and if any fiduciary obligations had been breached.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, applied the objective test to determine the intention to create legal relations, considering the language used and the nature of the arrangement. The court found that while some aspects of the alleged agreements were too imprecise to be legally enforceable, other elements, particularly those concerning financial provision, could be construed as creating legal obligations. The court also addressed the equitable principles, finding that the evidence did not support a claim for unconscionability or a breach of fiduciary duty. The judges deferred to the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting the advantage of having observed the witnesses.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Mr. Ashton was ordered to pay the costs of Ms. Pratt, with liberty granted to Ms. Pratt to apply for costs against the other respondents within seven days.