Campbell v Turner

The appeal in Campbell v Turner involved the plaintiff, Campbell, who sought an equitable interest in land against the defendants, Turner, on the basis of an alleged expectation created by the defendants. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around the enforceability of a deed and the defendants' conduct and statements prior to the execution of the deed, which the plaintiff claimed formed the basis of an expectation that gave rise to an equitable interest. The deed was found to be void under s 8 of the Land Sales Act 1984 (Qld). The trial judge determined that the plaintiff's case did not exclude reliance on the void deed and that the plaintiff's pleadings did not preclude reliance on the Land Sales Act.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff's pleadings effectively excluded reliance on the void deed, whether the plaintiff's case necessarily relied on the Land Sales Act to confer any status, and whether the nature of the statutory provision precluded the existence of the equity for which the plaintiffs contended. The court also had to consider whether points and objections not raised at trial could be considered on appeal and if compound interest should be granted as part of the equitable relief for breach of trust.

The court held that the appeal was allowable and that the orders made by the trial judge should be set aside. The court found that the nature of the statutory provision did not preclude the existence of the equity for which the plaintiffs contended. It also held that the plaintiffs were not precluded from raising the estoppel to overcome the effect of the statute. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were not allowed to run the argument on appeal that the defendants' failure to inform them about the inability to proceed with a subdivision was productive of substantial loss. The court ordered that the first and fourth defendants pay the plaintiffs specified amounts, and dismissed the claim against the second and third defendants. The court also directed the parties to submit written submissions regarding costs.