Hampson v Hampson

The appeal concerned a claim of proprietary estoppel brought by the youngest son (the appellant) against his late father's estate, which had been left equally to all seven children. The appellant alleged that his father had promised him a portion of the land, approximately one-third of the estate, if he lived there and renovated a cottage. The appellant further claimed he had relied on this assurance. The appeal also involved a family provision claim.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant had established a claim for proprietary estoppel, not only against his father but also against his mother, the testatrix, who had subsequently inherited the property and left it to all seven children. Additionally, the court considered an application to adduce further evidence on appeal in support of the proprietary estoppel claim, specifically whether the failure of the appellant's solicitor to act on instructions constituted "special grounds" for admitting such evidence under s75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The court also reviewed the trial judge's decision regarding the family provision claim, including the applicable legislation and the process for calculating adequate provision among the beneficiaries.

Regarding proprietary estoppel, the court found that the appellant had not sufficiently established a claim against the testatrix, as there was a lack of evidence concerning her testamentary intentions or the appellant's reliance on any representation made by her. Consequently, the appeal against the trial judge's finding on proprietary estoppel was rejected. The application to adduce further evidence was also dismissed, as the appellant had not satisfied the "special grounds" test outlined in *Akins v National Australia Bank*, with the actions and inactions of his legal representative being attributed to him in assessing reasonable diligence. The court also noted that the reception of further evidence was forbidden by s79A(8) of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The appeal relating to the family provision claim was also dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge's determination of the appellant's claim under the relevant legislation.

The application to receive further evidence on appeal was dismissed with costs, and the appeal itself was dismissed with costs.