Helmers v Como

Case [2014] WASC 394

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION:   HELMERS -v- COMO [2014] WASC 394

CORAM:   ACTING MASTER GETHING

HEARD:   21 OCTOBER 2014

DELIVERED          :   31 OCTOBER 2014

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1517 of 2013

BETWEEN:   HELGA­­EVA HELMERS

Plaintiff

AND

MICHAEL BERND COMO
First Defendant

REGISTRAR OF TITLES
Second Defendant

COMMISSIONER OF TITLES
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Summary judgment application by defendant to a counterclaim - Promissory estoppe1 - Proprietary estoppel - Issue estoppel

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 14, O 20 r 19
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 138C

Result:

Application dismissed

Category:    A

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr A J Aristei

First Defendant             :     Mr C Stokes

Second Defendant         :     Not applicable

Third Defendant           :     Not applicable

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Corser & Corser

First Defendant             :     Chris Stokes & Associates

Second Defendant         :     Not applicable

Third Defendant           :     Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552

Anderson v Effexseven (1998) 10 ANZ Ins Cas 61‑424

Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184

Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332

Australian Crime Commission v Gray [2003] NSWCA 318

Australian Goldfields NL (in liq) v North Australian Diamonds NL [2009] WASCA 98

Bashford v Bashford [2008] WASC 138

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256

Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23; (1939) 62 CLR 464

Burton v The Shire of Bairnsdale [1908] HCA 57; (1908) 7 CLR 76

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853

Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185

Como v Helmers [2011] WASC 179

DP World Australia Ltd v Fremantle Port Authority [2009] WASCA 16

Effem Foods Pty Ltd v Trawl Industries of Australia Pty ltd (in liq) (1993) 43 FCR 510

Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan [1980] AC 331

Fairworld Holdings Pty Ltd v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd [No 3] [2012] WASC 190

Fremantle Port Authority v DP World Australia Ltd [2007] WADC 202

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125

Giumelli v Giumelli (1996) 17 WAR 159

Harrison v Harrison [2011] VSC 459

Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1983) 44 ALR 365

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529

Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22; (1950) 81 CLR 446

Joseph Lynch Land Co Ltd v Lynch [1995] 1 NZLR 37

Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v State of Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6414, 25 August 1986)

Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363

Lill v Merchant Capital (WA) Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 536

Lois Nominees Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2011] WASC 208; (2011) 42 WAR 75

Miles v Bull [1969] 1 QB 258

Mondo Di Carne Pty Ltd v David Partridge Pty Ltd [2006] WADC…

Continue reading Helmers v Como

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Helmers v Como [2014] WASC 394
Case
[2014] WASC 394
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Helmers v Como was before the court for the defendant's application to dismiss the counterclaim brought by Ms Helmers. Ms Helmers argued that Mr Como was estopped from denying certain facts due to issue estoppel, promissory estoppel, and proprietary estoppel. The court was required to decide whether the defendant's counterclaim should be struck out as an abuse of the court's processes and whether summary judgment should be granted to Ms Helmers.

The court considered the doctrine of issue estoppel, which is based on the principles of public policy that judicial decisions should be final, binding, and conclusive, and that an individual should not be required to litigate matters afresh which have already been determined by a court. The court also considered the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is a legal principle that a promise can be enforced even if there is no consideration, provided that the promisee has relied on the promise to their detriment. The court further considered the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, which is a legal principle that a person may be estopped from denying a claim to property or an interest in property if they have led another person to believe that they have a right to the property or an interest in the property.

The court found that there was a reasonable possibility that Ms Helmers would succeed in establishing a cause of action and remedy based on promissory estoppel or proprietary estoppel. The court was conscious that the precise scope of the doctrine of promissory estoppel remained unsettled, and it was important to allow the case to proceed to trial to allow the law to develop. The court also found that there was no basis for striking out Mr Como's counterclaim on the basis of issue estoppel. The court concluded that it was not appropriate to grant summary judgment to Ms Helmers.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Mr Como's application for summary judgment and refused to strike out Ms Helmers' counterclaim. The case was to proceed to trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

I am conscious that the precise scope of the doctrine of promissory estoppel remains unsettled - see, for example: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) [No 3] [2012] WASCA 157; (2012) 44 WAR 1 [1738] ‑ [1768] (Drummond AJA); Robertson A, (2013) 7 Journal of Equity 226, 'Three models of promissory estoppel'. However, to the extent that this uncertainty may go against Mr Como, I ought to allow the case to proceed to trial and not seek to resolve the issues on a summary basis. A court should be careful not to risk stifling the development of the law by summarily disposing of actions where there was a reasonable possibility that, as the law develops, it will be found that a cause of action and remedy lies: Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia v Hunt (1983) 44 ALR 365, 373 ‑ 374 (Master Allen); Neilson [18]; Lois Nominees Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2011] WASC 208; (2011) 42 WAR 75 [35] (Beech J). Ms Helmers claims that Mr Como is estopped from making the Estoppel Pleadings on the basis of an issue estoppel arising out of the decision of Corboy J in Como. The doctrine of issue estoppel was explained by Dixon J in Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23; (1939) 62 CLR 464 in the following terms:A judicial determination directly involving an issue of fact or of law disposes once for all of the issue, so that it cannot afterwards be raised between the same parties or their privies. The estoppel covers only those matters which the prior judgment, decree or order necessarily established as the legal foundation or justification of its conclusion, whether that conclusion is that a money sum be recovered or that the doing of an act be commanded or be restrained or that rights be declared. The distinction between res judicata and issue-estoppel is that in the first the very right or cause of action claimed or put in suit has in the former proceedings passed into judgment, so that it is merged and has no longer an independent existence, while in the second, for the purpose of some other claim or cause of action, a state of fact or law is alleged or denied the existence of which is a matter necessarily decided by the prior judgment, decree or order (531 ‑ 532). The doctrine of issue estoppel is based on three principles of public policy: the need for judicial decisions to be final, binding and conclusive; the need to avoid an individual suffering the injustice that would occur if he or she were required to litigate matters afresh which have already been determined by a court; and the need for decisions of courts, unless set aside or quashed, to be accepted as incontrovertibly correct: Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251, 273 ‑ 274 (Deane and Gaudron JJ). Given the public policy underpinnings of issue estoppel, where a party is estopped from denying certain facts due to the existence of an issue estoppel, a pleading containing those facts is liable to be struck out pursuant to RSC O 20 r 19(1)(d) as being an abuse of the processes of the court: Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; (1993) 177 CLR 378, 393 (Mason CJ, Deane & Dawson JJ); Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529, 536 (Lord Diplock); Commonwealth of Australia v Albany Port Authority [2006] WASCA 185 [20] (Steytler P). The extent of the issue estoppel may also be sufficient to make it appropriate for the court to grant summary judgment to the party claiming the benefit of the estoppel - see, for example, Fremantle Port Authority v DP World Australia Ltd [2007] WADC 202; DP World Australia Ltd v Fremantle Port Authority [2009] WASCA 16 (though on the facts, summary judgment was not granted).