Evans v Braddock

Evans, the son of Braddock, commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, alleging that he was led to believe by his father that he would inherit one third of certain identified real property through his father’s Will. Braddock, who was jointly holding the property with his wife, allegedly made this assurance during a conversation in approximately 1983. Braddock’s wife, who was present during this conversation, did not object. Evans claimed that he acted to his detriment in reliance on this assurance, and that it amounted to an irrevocable promise or assurance. Additionally, Evans argued that a common intention constructive trust should be imposed over the property, and that a breach of director’s duties occurred when the property was transferred to Braddock and his wife, who was a director of the company. Braddock and his wife had both died before the proceedings were commenced.

The court was required to determine whether the conversation between Braddock and Evans amounted to an irrevocable promise or assurance, whether Evans acted to his detriment in reasonable reliance on this assurance, whether Braddock and his wife knew of the alleged reliance, whether there was any unconscionable conduct by them, and whether the estate of Braddock’s wife was bound to give effect to the alleged irrevocable promise or assurance. The court was also required to consider whether the elements necessary to establish a common intention constructive trust were proved, and whether there was a breach of director’s duties when the property was transferred to Braddock and his wife.

The court found that Evans had not proved the conversation with Braddock amounted to an irrevocable promise or assurance. The court was not satisfied that any such promise or assurance was made by Braddock, or by Braddock’s wife by silence. The court found that Evans had not proved he acted to his detriment in reasonable reliance on any such promise or assurance. The court found that Braddock and his wife did not know of the alleged reliance by Evans, and that there was no unconscionable conduct by them. The court found that any such promise or assurance was revocable, and that the conduct of Evans and the company was inconsistent with their alleged reliance on any such promise or assurance. The court found that the estate of Braddock’s wife was not bound to give effect to any such irrevocable promise or assurance. The court also found that the elements necessary to establish a common intention constructive trust were not proved, and that there was no breach of director’s duties when the property was transferred to Braddock and his wife.

The court did not need to determine whether the 6-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) applied by analogy to the equitable claim. The court dismissed the proceedings with costs.