Legal Research
Cases
Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg

Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg

Case [2009] VSCA 112 27 May 2009

Equitable Estoppel

Constructive Trust

Equitable Compensation

Trusts & Equity

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 7433 of 2004

FIFTEENTH EESTIN NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 005 291 832) & ORS	Appellants
FIFTEENTH EESTIN NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 005 291 832) & ORS	v
BARRY ROSENBERG (as Executor to the Estate of Emanuel Rosenberg, deceased) & ANOR	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	Maxwell P, Neave and Redlich JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22-23 January 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 May 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSCA 112

---

EQUITABLE OR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL – Whether father estopped from removing trustee of discretionary trust and changing will because of alleged representations and promises to daughter and son-in-law – Whether judge erred in rejecting claims regarding representations – Whether judge erred in finding that no detriment was suffered in reliance on alleged representations or promises – Whether constructive trust of assets established – Whether judge erred in finding that appropriate order, if either claim was made out, would be for equitable compensation.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Father died shortly before appeal was heard – Son nominated as executor of will, but probate not yet granted – Application for order that son be made respondent to the appeal in substitution for father – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 rr 9.09(2) and 16.03(1)(b).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellants	Mr G R Ritter QC with Mr R Greenberger and Ms L M Powderly	Kalus Kenny
For the respondents	Mr P B Murdoch QC with Mr S H Parmenter	B2B Lawyers

I Introduction

II Background to the proceedings

III Management of the Investment Trust

IV Summary of grounds of appeal

V Is Emanuel’s personal representative a party to the appeal?

VI Were the pleaded representations made?

A The pleadings

B Summary of alleged representations

C The evidence

D His Honour’s findings

E The significance of the credibility findings

F The attack on the credibility findings…………………………………………………….48

G Should his Honour have found that any of the pleaded representations were made out?

VII The issue of detriment

A Execution of the Dissolution Agreement

B Management of the Investment Trust and its assets.

C The taking over of the Delf Brass business

D Ian Berger’s loan to Project Hardware, the guarantee of its debts and the loan by Project Hardware to the Investment Trust

E Provision of a home for Emanuel

VIII Could any detriment be rectified by an award of equitable compensation?

IXRemoval of a trustee for breaches of trust

MAXWELL P
NEAVE JA
REDLICH JA:

I INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal from the decision of a trial division judge, holding that the second and third appellants, Sabrina and Ian Berger, are not entitled to various interests in property.[1] Those interests were claimed on the basis of what was said to have been their detrimental reliance on representations made to them by Emanuel Rosenberg, Sabrina Berger’s father. The appellants also appeal from his Honour’s decision that Emanuel Rosenberg was entitled to exercise his power of appointment to remove the first appellant, Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd (‘Fifteenth Eestin’), as the trustee of the E Rosenberg…

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 Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg

Details

AGLC: Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg [2009] VSCA 112
Case: [2009] VSCA 112
Decision Date: 27 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg involves a dispute over the estate of the deceased, Eestin, who had established a discretionary trust with his daughter as trustee. The appellants, the executors of the deceased's estate, sought to have the son-in-law removed as trustee and to challenge changes to the deceased's will. The legal issues at hand pertained to whether the deceased was estopped from altering the trust and his will due to representations made to the daughter and son-in-law, whether the judge correctly dismissed the claims concerning these representations, if there was a detriment suffered by the daughter and son-in-law in reliance on the alleged promises, whether a constructive trust of the assets was established, and if the judge erred in determining that equitable compensation was the appropriate remedy if any claim were successful.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It considered whether the representations made by the deceased amounted to an estoppel and whether the daughter and son-in-law had indeed relied on those representations to their detriment. The court found that the judge had not erred in rejecting the claims regarding the representations, as they were not sufficiently clear or specific to create an estoppel. Additionally, the court agreed with the judge's finding that no detriment was suffered by the daughter and son-in-law in reliance on the alleged representations or promises. The court also upheld the judge's decision that a constructive trust of the assets was not established. Finally, the court concurred with the judge's conclusion that equitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy if either claim had been successful.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmance of the judge's decision. The court also denied the application for the son to be made a respondent to the appeal in substitution for his father, as probate of the will had not yet been granted. The court's decision was based on the findings that no estoppel was established, no detriment was suffered, no constructive trust was created, and that equitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy if any claim had been successful.

Orders