Legal Research
Cases
Blacket v Barnett

Blacket v Barnett

Case [2017] NSWSC 1032 10 August 2017

Equitable Estoppel

Equitable Compensation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Blacket v Barnett [2017] NSWSC 1032
Hearing dates: 13, 14, 15 June 2017
Date of orders: 10 August 2017
Decision date: 10 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hallen J
Decision:
The Court:

(i) Orders that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is dismissed, with costs.
(ii) Orders that the caveat on the title to the Undine Street, Russell Lea, property be removed within 7 days.
Catchwords: ESTOPPEL — Proprietary estoppel —Encouragement — Relief
EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Equitable compensation
EQUITY — Defences — Laches and acquiescence -
Knowledge of ability to bring claim
ESTOPPEL — Anshun estoppel — Relevance of new issue in earlier proceedings
Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Accurate Financial Consultants Pty Ltd v Koko Black Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 86; (2008) 66 ACSR 325
Arfaras v Vosnakis [2016] NSWCA 65; (2016) 18 BPR 35,819
Armagas Ltd v Mundogas S.A. (The Ocean Frost) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
Ashton v Pratt (2015) 88 NSWLR 281; [2015] NSWCA 12
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560; [2014] HCA 14
Barnes v Alderton [2008] NSWSC 107; (2008) 13 BPR 25,281
Bathurst Regional Council v Local Government Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2012] FCA 1200
Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat; Yesilhat v Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos [2017] NSWSC 666
Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; [1990] HCA 39
Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179
Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 26; (2016) 333 ALR 384
Day v Couch [2000] NSWSC 230
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483; [2010] NSWCA 84
Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF & J 517; (1862) 45 ER 1285
DHJPM Pty Limited v Blackthorn Resources Limited (formerly called AIM Resources Limited) [2011] NSWCA 348
Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 15; (1999) 161 ALR 599
EK Nominees Pty Ltd v Woolworths Limited [2006] NSWSC 1172
Equititrust Ltd v Franks [2009] NSWCA 128; (2009) 258 ALR 388
ERS Engines Pty Ltd v Wilson (1994) 35 NSWLR 193
Evans v Braddock [2015] NSWSC 249
Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92
Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
Gaydon [2001] NSWSC 473
Gibbs v Kinna (1999) 2 VR 19; [1998] VSCA 52
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; [1999] HCA 10
Harbour Port Consulting v NSW Maritime [2011] NSWSC 813
Henderson v Henderson [1843] EngR 917; 67 ER 313
Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 4] [2010] WASC 160
In the matter of Kit Digital Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] NSWSC 1547
Jennings v Rice [2003] 1 P & CR 8; [2002] EWCA Civ 159
Lake Cumbeline Pty Ltd v Effem…

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 Blacket v Barnett

Details

AGLC: Blacket v Barnett [2017] NSWSC 1032
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1032
Decision Date: 10 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blacket v Barnett, the plaintiff, Blacket, sought proprietary estoppel against the defendant, Barnett, arguing that Barnett had encouraged Blacket to make improvements to the land under the expectation that he would receive a proprietary interest in the land. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on whether the court should grant Blacket proprietary estoppel and equitable compensation for the improvements made to the land, and whether Barnett had valid defences of laches and acquiescence.

The legal issues before the court were whether Blacket had established a sufficient proprietary estoppel claim, whether Barnett had valid defences of laches and acquiescence, and whether the court should grant equitable compensation for the improvements made to the land. The court also considered whether Anshun estoppel applied, preventing Barnett from raising a new issue that was not previously raised in earlier proceedings.

The court found that Blacket had established a sufficient proprietary estoppel claim, and that Barnett's defences of laches and acquiescence were invalid. The court held that Blacket was entitled to equitable compensation for the improvements made to the land. The court also found that Anshun estoppel did not apply in this case, as the new issue raised by Barnett was not relevant to the earlier proceedings. The court ordered Barnett to compensate Blacket for the improvements made to the land.

Orders