Ball v Ball (No 2)

In the case of Ball v Ball, the dispute was between the parties in relation to claims of proprietary estoppel and equitable compensation. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendant had agreed to fund his share of a jointly acquired property, and represented to the plaintiff's mother that the financier required both names on the loan documentation. The defendant then changed the locks and the home was subsequently sold by forced sale. The mother claimed proprietary estoppel and equitable compensation.

The court was required to determine the appropriate time to measure the relief, and whether the expectation of the mother was disappointed when the locks were changed, depriving her of the opportunity to continue to live as a co-owner of the property. The court also had to determine whether there was any evidence adduced of the value of the property at that time, and if not, whether equitable compensation could be awarded. The court found that the expectation of the mother was disappointed when the locks were changed, and that there was no evidence of the value of the property at that time.

The court awarded equitable compensation in the sum of half of the eventual net proceeds of the property, as a measure of relief. The court found that the defendant had represented to the plaintiff's mother that the financier required both names on the loan documentation, and that the defendant had changed the locks, depriving the mother of the opportunity to continue to live as a co-owner of the property. The court held that the mother was entitled to equitable compensation, and awarded her half of the eventual net proceeds of the property.