Donis v Donis (No 2) - [2006] VSC 125

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7524 of 2001

SUSIE DONIS	Plaintiff
v
VICTOR DONIS & ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	HANSEN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 December 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 April 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Donis v Donis (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 125

---

Equity – Estoppel – Promise to transfer interest in land on marriage – Promise not fulfilled – Claim upheld – Relief.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R J Spicer	Pearce Webster Dugdales
For the Defendants	Mr P C Golombek	Victor C Andreou

HIS HONOUR:

I gave judgment in this proceeding on 16 September 2005[1]. I concluded that the defendants had broken their promise to the plaintiff that when she married Steven she would be made an owner with him of one-half of the land at Plenty Road, Mernda, and that she acted on that promise to her detriment.
[1]Donis v Donis [2005] VSC 365.

The detriment was of a financial and non-financial nature the several aspects of which I dealt with at [365]-[391] and which I refer to below in dealing with the plaintiff’s submissions. In summary I concluded as follows.

As to the financial contributions, I concluded (at [373]) that approximately $40,000 was spent on the items referred to by the plaintiff. The value or benefit of these items was lost to the plaintiff when the parties separated. That figure did not include the value of contributions Steven made towards paying the first and second defendants’ mortgage on the property[2]; I concluded that I was not able to find the amount of that contribution. The non-financial contributions were constituted by the efforts of the plaintiff and her family and Steven to clean up and improve the house and its surrounds. There were additional aspects of detriment which I discussed at [377] – [391]. At [391] – [392] I concluded that the plaintiff had suffered substantial detriment as a result of relying on the defendants’ statements and promises and that the elements of equitable estoppel were made out.
[2]At [375].

The question then was, what was required to satisfy the equity that has arisen?[3] As I pointed out in my judgment, the plaintiff did not seek mere recompense for the loss of the value or benefit of the financial contributions to the property or other detriment, apart from the loss of the interest in the property. Nor was it part of her case that the value of the Mernda property, or the house thereon that she and Steven had occupied, was increased by any particular amount by reason of the financial and non-financial contributions, or that by reason of the contributions Victor and Rosa (the first and second defendants) obtained a financial benefit on the sale of the property[4]. Indeed neither party suggested that a relevant advantage to the defendants or detriment to the plaintiff was to be found there. Rather, the plaintiff…

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 Donis v Donis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Donis v Donis (No 2) [2006] VSC 125
Case: [2006] VSC 125
Decision Date: 7 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Donis and Donis, and the dispute centred around a promise made by Donis to transfer an interest in land to the other party upon their marriage. This matter was heard in the Australian court. The central legal issues that the court had to decide upon revolved around whether an equitable estoppel was applicable in this situation, where one party had made a promise concerning the transfer of a land interest that was not fulfilled. The court also had to consider the appropriate relief that could be granted in such a case.

The court determined that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was indeed applicable in this case. The court found that Donis had made a clear and unambiguous promise to transfer the interest in the land, and that the other party had reasonably relied on this promise to their detriment. The court held that it was unjust for Donis to go back on their promise and not transfer the land interest as had been agreed. The court found that the promise was of such a nature that it was reasonable for the other party to rely on it, and that there was a significant detriment suffered as a result of this reliance. As such, the court found that an equitable estoppel was applicable, and that the promisee was entitled to relief.

Based on its findings, the court granted the relief sought by the promisee. The specific details of the relief granted were not outlined in the text. However, it can be inferred that the relief granted would likely involve the transfer of the land interest as promised, or some other form of compensation that would address the detriment suffered by the promisee. The court's decision in this case serves as an important reminder of the importance of fulfilling promises made in the context of land transactions, and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders