Legal Research
Cases
Harris v Harris

Harris v Harris

Case [2021] VSCA 138 20 May 2021

Equitable Estoppel

Detrimental Reliance

Conscientious Conduct

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2020 0056

RAYMOND JOHN HARRIS	Applicant
v
GARY HARRIS	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, NIALL and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 138
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VSC 256 (John Dixon J)

---

ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Oral promises by landowner that son would receive family farm – Whether unconscionable to depart from promises – Where trial judge’s findings on expectation and detrimental reliance unchallenged – Prima facie entitlement to promised interest – Whether remedy went beyond what is required for conscientious conduct – Whether remedy ‘out of all proportion’ to detriment – Where detriment substantial but not precisely quantified – Where promisor made undertaking at trial to grant part of promised interest – Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101, Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505, Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577, Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483 applied – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C E Shaw QC with Mr J D McKay	Simon Parsons & Co
For the Respondent	Mr D B Clough	MacPherson Kelley

BEACH JA
NIALL JA
KENNEDY JA:

This application raises two related questions in the context of a claim of proprietary estoppel relating to oral promises made by the applicant to his son (the respondent). Essentially, both questions ask whether the applicant is bound in conscience to make good his son’s expectation that he would inherit the family farm (as the trial judge found),[1] or whether the grant of a lesser proprietary interest sufficed to satisfy the requirements of conscientious conduct.
[1][2020] VSC 256 (‘Reasons’).

For reasons expressed below, we have found no error in the approach of the trial judge with the result that, although leave will be given, the appeal will be dismissed.

Preliminary

The applicant, Raymond John Harris (‘John’), was the registered proprietor in fee simple of four parcels of land, being the land contained in certificates of title volume 8679 folio 903 (‘the Home Farm’), volume 9686 folio 190 (‘the Delios Farm’), volume 9686 folio 189 (‘the House Block’), and volume 8286 folio 326 (being a small triangle of land located between the three other parcels of land that was treated as part of the Delios Farm). These parcels are collectively referred to as ‘the Farm’.

John has carried on a business from the Farm for several decades. John resided at the Farm with his late wife Lynette Harris (‘Lynette’) until her death in 2010. John now resides at the Farm with his second wife, Robyn Harris, and continues to operate the farming business.

John’s younger son, Craig Harris (‘Craig’), instituted a proceeding in the trial division of this Court on 3 March 2017. Craig claimed, inter alia, a proprietary interest in the Farm on the basis of oral promises made by John and Lynette (allegedly…

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 Harris v Harris

Details

AGLC: Harris v Harris [2021] VSCA 138
Case: [2021] VSCA 138
Decision Date: 20 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harris v Harris arose from a dispute over the ownership and management of a family farm. The son, who had been assured by his father that he would receive the farm, sought a declaration of proprietary estoppel after his father passed away and the farm was managed by another family member. The Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the son's claim for proprietary estoppel was valid and, if so, what remedy should be granted.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was unconscionable for the father to depart from his oral promises regarding the farm, and if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The son argued that the father's assurances created a legitimate expectation that he would inherit the farm, and that his reliance on these assurances led to significant detriment. The court had to consider whether the son's expectation was reasonable and whether his reliance was detrimental, as well as whether the remedy sought by the son was disproportionate to the detriment he suffered.

The court found that the son's expectation was reasonable and that he had indeed suffered significant detriment by relying on his father's promises. The trial judge's findings on these matters were unchallenged. The court then considered whether the remedy sought by the son went beyond what was required to ensure that the father acted conscientiously. The court noted that while the detriment suffered by the son was substantial, it was not precisely quantified. The father had also made an undertaking at trial to grant the son part of the promised interest. The court applied principles from previous cases such as Giumelli v Giumelli, Sidhu v Van Dyke, Donis v Donis, and Delaforce v Simpson-Cook to determine that the remedy sought was not out of proportion to the detriment suffered.

The court ultimately dismissed the father's appeal and granted leave to the son to appeal. The court found that the son had a prima facie entitlement to the promised interest in the farm, and that the remedy granted was appropriate given the circumstances. The final orders of the court were that the son was entitled to a declaration of proprietary estoppel and that the father was required to grant the son a specific interest in the farm, as outlined in the court's decision.

Orders