Legal Research
Cases
Dable v Peisley

Dable v Peisley

Case [2009] NSWSC 772 7 August 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Dable v Peisley [2009] NSWSC 772

HEARING DATE(S): 9, 10 and 11 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 August 2009

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Ward J

DECISION: Plaintiffs claims dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACTS – general contractual principles – offer and acceptance – whether deceased contracted to leave estate to plaintiffs in exchange for provision of hospitality and personal services – whether objectively ascertainable intention legally to be bound – whether consideration sufficient – whether offer accepted – held that no contract existed – no objectively ascertainable intention legally to be bound - ESTOPPEL – proprietary estoppel – whether deceased’s executors estopped from denying plaintiffs’ interest in estate – held that deceased had made assurances that he would leave estate to one or more of the plaintiffs – assurances not understood to be irrevocable and not relied upon as such – held no significant detriment suffered – not unconscionable for deceased to act contrary to assurances made.

LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Austin v Keele (1987) 10 NSWLR 283
Australian Crime Commission v Gray [2003] NSWCA 318
Barnes v Alderton [2008] NSWSC 107
Birmingham v Renfrew (1936) 57 CLR 666
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256
Ciavarella v Polimeni [2008] NSWSC 234
Equititrust Limited v Franks [2009] NSWCA 128
Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712
Galaxidis v Galaxidis [2004] NSWCA 111
Gillett v Holt [1998] 3 All ER 917
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886
Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638
Hawker Pacific Pty Limited v Helicopter Charter Pty Limited (1991) 22 NSWLR 298
Palmer v Bank of New South Wales (1975) 133 CLR 150
Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129
Saliba v Tarmo [2009] NSWSC 581
Simpson-Cook v Delaforce [2009] NSWSC 357
Staib v Powell [1979] Qd R 151
Taylor v Dickens [1998] 1 FLR (Eng) 806
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
Vukic v Luca Grbin; Estate of Zvonko Grbin [2006] NSWSC 41
Walton v Walton (1994, CA, unreported)
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Weeks v Hrubala [2008] NSWSC 162
Woolworths Limited v Kelly (1991) 22 NSWLR 189
Yeoman’s Row Management Limited v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 55

TEXTS CITED: Meagher Gummow & Lehane [17-110]
Spry Equitable Remedies 7th Ed 2007

PARTIES: Raymond Dable (First Plaintiff)
Yolla Dable (Second Plaintiff)
Mouris Dable (Deceased) by his Administrator, Denise Dable (Third Plaintiff)
Denise Dable (Fourth Plaintiff)
Lorraine Dable (Fifth Plaintiff)
John Harvison Peisley (First Defendant)
Grahame Goldberg (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1032 of 2008

COUNSEL: R Horsley (Plaintiffs)
C Freeman (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: Jonathan Abbott & Associates (Plaintiffs)
Goldberg Lawyers (Defendants)

- 72 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

FRIDAY 7 August 2009

WARD J

1032/08 RAYMOND DABLE & ORS V JOHN HARVISON PEISLEY & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: In these proceedings various members of the Dable family (including Raymond Dable (“Mr Dable”), his sisters Yolla and Lorraine Dable and his sister-in-law Denise Dable) to whom I will refer…

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 Dable v Peisley

Details

AGLC: Dable v Peisley [2009] NSWSC 772
Case: [2009] NSWSC 772
Decision Date: 7 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dable v Peisley involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased individual, with the plaintiffs seeking to enforce a purported agreement with the deceased to leave them part of his estate in return for their provision of hospitality and personal services. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs argued that a legally binding contract had been formed with the deceased, and that the deceased's executors were estopped from denying their interest in the estate due to proprietary estoppel.

The court was required to consider whether there was an objectively ascertainable intention to be legally bound by a contract and whether sufficient consideration had been provided for such a contract. The court also needed to determine if the plaintiffs had accepted the offer made by the deceased and whether the deceased's assurances regarding the estate could be relied upon to prevent the executors from denying the plaintiffs' interest in the estate under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The court found that there was no objectively ascertainable intention to be legally bound by a contract between the deceased and the plaintiffs, and that the consideration provided was not sufficient to support such a contract. The court further found that the deceased's assurances, while made, were not understood to be irrevocable and were not relied upon as such by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court determined that no significant detriment had been suffered by the plaintiffs and that it was not unconscionable for the deceased to act contrary to the assurances made. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claim for proprietary estoppel was also dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' claims for a contract and proprietary estoppel were dismissed, and the estate of the deceased could be distributed without any interest being held by the plaintiffs.

Orders