Legal Research
Cases
Henderson v Miles

Henderson v Miles

Case [2005] NSWSC 710 20 July 2005

Contract Formation

Equitable Estoppel

Unconscionable Conduct

Contract Law

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Henderson v Miles [2005] NSWSC 710

HEARING DATE(S): 27 and 28 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

20 July 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Young CJ in Eq

DECISION:
Plaintiff entitled to charge over defendants' property.

CATCHWORDS:
CONTRACTS [17]- Domestic arrangement- Mother built dwelling on daughter and son-in-law's property- Mother permitted to occupy dwelling provided she did not vacate- Insufficient evidence to rebut presumption that arrangement was not a binding contract. EQUITY [33]- Charge over land- Dwelling built by mother on daughter and son-in-law's land- Breakdown in relations- Whether unconscionable for defendants to retain benefit of dwelling- Mother entitled to minimum equity necessary to remedy unconscionable retention of windfall by defendants.

CASES CITED:
Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137
Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Nichols v Nichols (1986) 4 BPR 9240
Perpetual Trustees Executors & Agency Company of Tasmania Ltd v Walker (1953) 90 CLR 270
Schnell v Tyrrell (1834) 7 Sim 86; 58 ER 769

PARTIES:
Annette Patricia Henderson (P)
Paul Burnie Miles (D1)
Monica Christine Mason (D2)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2219/03

COUNSEL:
J C Pentelow (P)
M Gorrick (D)

SOLICITORS:
Adams & Partners (P)
Fishburn Watson O'Brien (D)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Wednesday 20 July 2005

2219/03 – HENDERSON v MILES

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings are brought by a mother against her daughter and son-in-law over a house the plaintiff/mother built on the defendants' land at Yarramundi.

2 There are various basic facts which are not in dispute. In 1985 the plaintiff had separated from her second husband and was unhappy with her bed-sit emergency accommodation at Penrith which had been provided to her by the Housing Commission or its successor. The plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the plaintiff could build a house on the defendants' land. The construction of the house was begun in October 1985 and the plaintiff moved into the house in June 1986.

3 At Christmas 1989 the plaintiff took a holiday in Tewantin, Queensland. She there met a man called "Jimmy". Later, Jimmy came to stay with the plaintiff at Yarramundi.

4 Some time in 1990, there was considerable evidence that it was July but I very much feel it must have been earlier, the plaintiff told the defendants that she was going to live with Jimmy in Queensland. She says that on 1 August 1990 she left Yarramundi and went with Jimmy to Queensland.

5 There is considerable dispute as to how the plaintiff left. She says that she and Jimmy had one vehicle between them and that she took very little furniture with her, mainly a bedside table and her "paraphernalia" as it would have been called in the 18th century. The defendants say that there were two vehicles and that the plaintiff took all her furniture leaving her house empty.

6 The plaintiff says that she and Jimmy stayed at various places along…

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 Henderson v Miles

Details

AGLC: Henderson v Miles [2005] NSWSC 710
Case: [2005] NSWSC 710
Decision Date: 20 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Henderson and Miles were the parties involved in the dispute, which pertained to a domestic arrangement where Henderson constructed a dwelling on Miles' property. The agreement was that Henderson could reside in the dwelling as long as she did not vacate it. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the nature of the agreement and the legal implications of the arrangement. The central legal issues before the court were whether the arrangement constituted a binding contract and, if so, what the consequences were for the parties involved.

The court examined the evidence presented and determined that there was insufficient proof to rebut the presumption that the arrangement was not a binding contract. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties and the circumstances surrounding the construction of the dwelling. The court held that the agreement was not a binding contract because there was no clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations. However, the court found that equity could provide a remedy for Henderson. The court held that Miles was unconscionable to retain the benefit of the dwelling without providing Henderson with the minimum equity necessary to remedy this unconscionability.

The court concluded that Henderson was entitled to the minimum equity necessary to remedy the unconscionable retention of the benefit of the dwelling by Miles. The court did not specify the exact amount of equity but noted that it would be sufficient to remedy the unconscionability. The court's decision was based on the principle that equity would intervene to prevent one party from retaining a benefit obtained through unconscionable conduct. The court did not make any further orders beyond the determination of the equity to which Henderson was entitled.

Orders