Harris v Harris - [2020] VSC 256

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S CI 2017 00756

CRAIG HARRIS	First Plaintiff
GARY HARRIS	Second Plaintiff
v
RAYMOND JOHN HARRIS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	John Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 – 11, 14 – 16 October, 3 December 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Harris v Harris
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 256

---

EQUITY — Estoppel — Proprietary estoppel — Expectation — Detrimental reliance — Unconscionable conduct — Farmland owned by plaintiffs’ father and mother — Promises as to future ownership made to plaintiffs — Plaintiff performed unpaid work for father over significant period — Expenditure by plaintiff on own property — Father foreshadows intention not to honour plaintiff’s expectation — Whether reasonable reliance — Whether detriment if expectation not fulfilled.

EQUITY — Estoppel — Proprietary estoppel — Remedy —Father’s undertaking at trial to transfer part of property to plaintiff (and another son) on death in part performance of alleged promise— Whether father acted unconscionably —Whether promise should be enforced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First Plaintiff until 9 October 2019	Mr J D S Barber	Cinque Oakley Bryant
For the Second Plaintiff	Mr D B Clough	Macpherson Kelley
For the Defendant	Mr J D McKay	Kevin Davine & Sons

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Facts and allegations.......................................................................................................................... 4

The witnesses................................................................................................................................. 4
1971 to 1977: The first promise.................................................................................................... 7
1981 to 1994: The second promise............................................................................................. 16
2008 to 2012: The third promise................................................................................................ 27
2013 to 2016: The fourth promise.............................................................................................. 32

The principles applying.................................................................................................................. 43

Submissions and analysis.............................................................................................................. 49

John’s key contentions................................................................................................................ 49
John’s representations and Gary’s belief or expectation....................................................... 50
John’s knowledge of Gary’s belief or expectation.................................................................. 55
Detrimental reliance by Gary on the belief or expectation................................................... 57
John’s unconscionability............................................................................................................ 59
Remedy......................................................................................................................................... 62

Conclusion and orders.................................................................................................................... 65

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Gary John Harris (Gary), born in 1961, is the son of the defendant, Raymond John Harris (John). When the trial commenced, Gary was the second plaintiff and his brother Craig Stephen Harris (Craig), born in 1964, was the first plaintiff.

Between 1967 and 1978, John, together with his wife, the late Lynette Harris (Lynette), acquired what are now four separate parcels of land adjoining Whitworths Road in Korumburra South, Victoria, being:

(a) certificates of title volume 8679 folio 903 (the Home Farm);

(b) certificate of title volume 9686 folio 190 (the Delios Farm);

(c) certificate of title volume 9686 folio 189 (the House Block); and

(d) certificate of title volume 8286 folio 326, being a small triangle of land located between the three other parcels of land that I will refer to as part of the Delios Farm,

(together, the Farm).

From 1967, John conducted, at various times, dairy milking and beef cattle farming, starting on the Home Farm and expanding the operation to the Delios Farm following its acquisition. John and, until they…

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 [2020] VSC 256
Case: [2020] VSC 256
Decision Date: 13 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Harris v Harris, the court was tasked with resolving a dispute concerning the ownership of a farm held by the plaintiffs' parents. The plaintiffs, who had both performed unpaid work for their father and made expenditures in reliance on their father's promises regarding the future ownership of the farm, sought to enforce these promises against their parents. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on their father's assurances, whether they had suffered detriment if their expectations were not fulfilled, and if the father's conduct was unconscionable.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the plaintiffs could establish the elements of proprietary estoppel, namely reasonable reliance on a promise, detriment if the promise was not fulfilled, and unconscionable conduct by the promisor. The court had to consider the extent of the plaintiffs' reliance on their father's assurances, the nature and extent of the detriment they suffered, and whether the father's conduct amounted to unconscionability.

The court found that the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on their father's promises regarding the future ownership of the farm, having performed significant unpaid work over a long period and made substantial expenditures in reliance on those promises. The detriment was deemed to be the unpaid work and the personal investments made by the plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the father's conduct was unconscionable, particularly given his prior assurances and the plaintiffs' reliance. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, enforcing the father's promise and ordering that part of the property be transferred to the plaintiffs upon his death.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that part of the farm be transferred to the plaintiffs and another son upon the death of the father, in partial fulfilment of the promise made. The court also considered the father's undertaking during the trial to transfer the property and found it to be a significant factor in its decision.

Orders