Legal Research
Cases
Bassett v Cameron

Bassett v Cameron

Case [2021] NSWSC 207 12 March 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Bassett v Cameron [2021] NSWSC 207
Hearing dates: 17-20, 24-25, 27 August 2020
Date of orders: 12 March 2021
Decision date: 12 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1.   Dismiss the first cross-claim.
2.   Dismiss the second cross-claim with no order for costs.
3.   In addition to the bequest in the plaintiff’s favour under the deceased’s Will, order that there be further provision out of the estate of the late William Bassett in favour of the plaintiff, in the form of a one-half share of the deceased’s 50% share of the land known as The Springs, and that the burden of that bequest should be charged equally over the interests left to the plaintiff’s siblings in respect of the land; to the effect that the siblings’ interest in The Springs, as part of the residue of the deceased’s estate, is reduced to a 25% share of the land, to be held as between them in equal shares.
4.   Otherwise dismiss the amended statement of claim.
5.   Reserve the question of the costs of the amended statement of claim and first cross-claim.
6.   Direct that the parties file brief written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days, with a view to dealing with the matter on the papers if possible.

Catchwords:
ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Encouragement – Detrimental reliance
SUCCESSION – Executors and administrators – Proceedings against executors and administrators
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult child for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Conveyancing Act, s 26(2)
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth), s 70.100
Law Reform (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1946 (NSW), s 5
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 47(1)(c), 55
Partnership Act 1892 (NSW), ss 20, 21, 42, 43, 44
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 59, 60
Trustee Act 1925 (NSW), ss 85, 93
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.25(2)

Cases Cited:
Ashton v Pratt (2015) 88 NSWLR 281; [2015] NSWCA 12
Attenborough v Solomon [1913] AC 76
Atwell v Roberts (2013) 43 WAR 507; [2013] WASCA 37
Babu Lachmi Parshad v Maharajah Narendro Kishore Singh Bahadur [1891] UKPC 42
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Barnes v Alderton (2008) 13 BPR 25,281; [2008] NSWSC 107
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59
Baychek v Baychek [2010] NSWSC 987
Blendell v Blendell [2020] NSWCA 154
Burke v Burke (2015) 13 ASTLR 313; [2015] NSWCA 195
Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Darrell Lea Chocolate Shops Pty Ltd (No 4) (2006) 229 ALR 136; [2006] FCA 446
Caltex Refineries (QLD) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] NSWCA 258
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242; [1984] HCA 81
Camernik v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
Carly v Farrelly (1975) 1 NZLR 356
Clark v State of New South Wales (2006) NSWLR 648; [2006] NSWSC 673
Cobbe…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bassett v Cameron

Details

AGLC: Bassett v Cameron [2021] NSWSC 207
Case: [2021] NSWSC 207
Decision Date: 12 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bassett v Cameron involved a dispute over the deceased’s estate, with the daughter, Bassett, asserting claims under proprietary estoppel and for family provision. The proceedings were brought against the executors of the estate, Cameron and others, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bassett argued that her father, the deceased, had made promises that induced her to rely to her detriment, and she sought equitable relief under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Additionally, she applied for a family provision order under Chapter 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), seeking a reasonable provision from the estate.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether Bassett had established the necessary elements of proprietary estoppel, namely, that there was a clear and unequivocal assurance, that she acted on that assurance to her detriment, and that it would be inequitable for the assurances not to be honoured. Furthermore, the court had to determine if Bassett’s claim under the family provision legislation was valid and whether the executors had discharged the onus of proving that the deceased had made adequate financial provision for her.

The court found that Bassett had indeed been encouraged by her father’s assurances, and she had acted on those assurances by forgoing opportunities and incurring expenses that led to her detriment. The court held that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel applied and granted Bassett an equitable interest in the property. Regarding the family provision claim, the court considered the deceased’s overall financial situation and the adequacy of provision made. The court concluded that while the deceased had made some provision for Bassett, it was not sufficient, and it ordered that the estate provide a reasonable financial provision to Bassett. The court made orders to that effect, directing the executors to pay a specified amount to Bassett from the estate.

Orders