Hardie v Milling

The plaintiffs, Hardie and Milling, brought a claim against the defendant in the Federal Court, seeking to enforce an estoppel preventing the defendant from disinheriting his daughter, the plaintiff, and her husband, the other plaintiff. The defendant had invited the plaintiffs to move onto his land and make improvements with his acquiescence, leading the plaintiffs to believe they would inherit the land. The defendant later decided to disinherit the plaintiffs, prompting this action. The court was required to determine whether an estoppel had arisen, preventing the defendant from going back on his word.

The central legal issue was whether the plaintiffs had established a proprietary estoppel. This required the court to consider if the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of inheriting the land based on the defendant's conduct, if they had acted in reliance on that expectation, and if it would be inequitable for the defendant to renege on his promise. The court also needed to assess the strength of the evidence provided by the plaintiffs and weigh it against the defendant's counterarguments.

After considering the evidence, the court found that the plaintiffs had indeed established a proprietary estoppel. The court held that the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of inheriting the land based on the defendant's conduct and had made significant improvements to the land in reliance on that expectation. The court found it inequitable for the defendant to disinherit the plaintiffs after their substantial reliance on the expectation of inheriting the land. The court set aside the defendant's decision to disinherit the plaintiffs and ordered him to honour his promise, ensuring the plaintiffs would inherit the land as they had reasonably expected.