Legal Research
Cases
Currie v Currie [No 2]

Currie v Currie [No 2]

Case [2017] WASC 312 9 November 2017

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CURRIE -v- CURRIE [No 2] [2017] WASC 312

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 12-16 & 19-23 JUNE & 18 & 21 JULY 2017

DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 1237 of 2013

BETWEEN: BRUCE MICHAEL CURRIE
Plaintiff
AND
GRAEME JOHN JAMES CURRIE
First Defendant
ANDREW JOHN CURRIE
Second Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 1848 of 2015

BETWEEN :GRAEME JOHN JAMES CURRIE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GLENAYR TRUST
Plaintiff
AND
BRUCE MICHAEL CURRIE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE GLENAYR TRUST NO 2
Defendant

Catchwords:

Equity and trusts - Estoppel - Proprietary estoppel - Promise to convey land - Farming family - Expectation of inheritance - Encouragement - Reliance - Where first defendant resiling from expectation - Detrimental reliance - Where resiling is unconscionable - Relief - Constructive trust

Equity and trusts - Estoppel - Proprietary estoppel - Certainty of assumption - Contractual certainty not required

Practice and procedure - Application to amend defence - After defendants closed their case - Where there is extensive delay - No adequate reason for delay - Prejudice to plaintiff if amendments allowed - Additional costs to litigants and to other litigants awaiting trial dates

Legislation:

Business Names Act 1962 (WA)
Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)

Result:

CIV 1237 of 2013
1. Defendants' application to amend defence refused
2. First defendant estopped from denying he holds the remaining Glenayr Farms properties on trust for the plaintiff. First defendant to transfer remaining Glenayr Farms properties to the plaintiff on condition that plaintiff pays $100,000 to the first defendant and causes any guarantee by the first defendant over the properties to be discharged
3. Counterclaim dismissed
CIV 1848 of 2015
1. Claim dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 1237 of 2013

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr M D Cuerden SC & Mr J M Burke
First Defendant              :     Mr N D C Dillon
Second Defendant         :     Mr N D C Dillon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     MDS Legal
First Defendant              :     AustAsia Legal Pty Ltd
Second Defendant         :     AustAsia Legal Pty Ltd

CIV 1848 of 2015

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr N D C Dillon
Defendant: Mr M D Cuerden SC & Mr J M Burke

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: AustAsia Legal Pty Ltd
Defendant: MDS Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australia National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179
Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 90 ALJR 770
Currie v Currie [2013] WASC 428
Delaforce v Simpson‑Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483
Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 145 ER 1285
Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577
Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 247
Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
McBride v Sandland (1918) 25 CLR 69
Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431
Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129

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 Currie v Currie [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Currie v Currie [No 2] [2017] WASC 312
Case: [2017] WASC 312
Decision Date: 9 NOVEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Currie v Currie [No 2] involved the plaintiffs, the children of the first defendant's deceased brother, bringing an action against the first and second defendants, the first defendant's children. The plaintiffs sought to enforce a promise made by the first defendant that they would inherit the family farm. The dispute centred around the enforceability of this promise, which was alleged to have been made in the context of a farming family, where the plaintiffs were encouraged to rely on an expectation of inheriting the farm. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the first defendant's promise to convey the farm to the plaintiffs was enforceable under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had a clear and unequivocal assumption that they would inherit the farm, whether the first defendant's conduct encouraged this assumption, and whether it would be unconscionable for the first defendant to resile from the promise. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiffs had relied to their detriment on the promise and whether the first defendant's resiling from the promise was unconscionable.

The court held that the plaintiffs had established a clear and unequivocal assumption that they would inherit the farm, and the first defendant's conduct encouraged this assumption. The court found that the plaintiffs had indeed relied to their detriment on the promise by foregoing other employment opportunities. The court further held that it would be unconscionable for the first defendant to resile from the promise, given the extent of the plaintiffs' reliance and the encouragement provided. Consequently, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered a constructive trust over the farm in their favour. The court also dismissed the application to amend the defence, noting the extensive delay and lack of adequate reason for the delay, which would prejudice the plaintiffs and increase costs to other litigants awaiting trial dates.

Orders