Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Gill v Garrett [2021] NSWCA 117 Hearing dates: 29, 30 March 2021 Date of orders: 4 June 2021 Decision date: 04 June 2021 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Emmett AJA at [3]Decision: Order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: ESTOPPEL — estoppel by representation — detrimental reliance — whether terms of representation proved — whether claimant actually relied upon alleged representation
SUCCESSION — family provision — claim by member of household for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW), Ch 3 — whether factors warranting —provision of household care to deceased — conscious misuse of special disadvantage of deceased — significance of reliance upon alleged agreement to leave real estate in will
EQUITY — fiduciary duties — unauthorised profit — bank cards and personal identification number entrusted for certain purposes — retention of excess cash for fiduciary’s personal use
EQUITY — unconscionable conduct — special disability or disadvantage — whether unconscientious advantage taken
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Succession Act 2006 (NSW), ss 57, 59
Cases Cited: Churton v Christian (1988) 13 NSWLR 241
Re Fulop (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jason Adrian Francis Gill (Appellant)
Alice Jemima Mary Garrett (First Respondent)
Catherine Sarah Jane Garrett (Second Respondent)
Thomas Peter John Garrett (Third Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
D W Robertson (Appellant)
M R Pesman SC with E Glover (Respondents)
Holman Webb Lawyers (Appellant)
LHD Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2020/236446 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 16 July 2020; 23 October 2020
- Before:
- Slattery J
- File Number(s):
- 2016/328585
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Mr Gill, the appellant, challenged a decision of a judge of the Equity Division dismissing his summons and statement of claim that sought a declaration that the executors of the late Dr Garrett held certain property on trust for him, and in the alternative, sought family provision under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) out of the estate. He also challenged the primary judge’s findings in favour of the executors under a cross-claim filed against the appellant.
The appellant met the deceased in 1996 and commenced a friendship that centred upon drinking and socialising in and around the Royal Hotel in Paddington. The relationship between the deceased and the appellant developed into one of greater mutual dependence. On the one hand, the deceased loaned money to the appellant and covered other expenses. In late 2003, the appellant moved into the Paddington home of the deceased, where he continued to reside until after the deceased died in 2015. The deceased paid for the storage of the appellant’s property and continued to loan him money and provide…
Continue reading Gill v Garrett
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gill v Garrett [2021] NSWCA 117
- Case
- [2021] NSWCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether Ms Gill was entitled to provision from the estate under the *Succession Act 2006* (NSW), considering her role as a member of the household and the care she provided to the deceased, and whether the deceased had taken unconscionable advantage of a special disadvantage. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether Ms Gill was estopped from claiming an interest in the real estate, and whether she had breached fiduciary duties by retaining excess cash from the deceased's bank cards.
The Court of Appeal found that Ms Gill had not proven the terms of any alleged agreement to leave her the real estate, nor had she established detrimental reliance on such an agreement. The court also concluded that Ms Gill had not demonstrated that the deceased had taken unconscionable advantage of any special disadvantage. Regarding the financial matters, the court found that Ms Gill had retained excess cash for her personal use, constituting an unauthorised profit and a breach of fiduciary duty.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.