Hepler v Rosenblum

The case of Hepler v Rosenblum involved a dispute over the validity of a caveat lodged against certain properties. The applicants, Hepler, sought the removal of the caveats lodged by the respondent, Rosenblum, who was their former business partner. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants argued that Rosenblum had agreed to provide an equitable charge over the properties but failed to provide a written agreement, thus rendering the charge ineffective under section 54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919. Rosenblum, on the other hand, maintained that the agreement was not intended to be legally binding and that there was no intention to create legal relations.

The central legal issues before the court were whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of an agreement to provide an equitable charge over the properties, and whether the lack of a written agreement could be overcome by an estoppel argument. The court had to determine whether the applicants could rely on promissory estoppel to enforce the alleged agreement despite the requirement for writing under the statute. The court also needed to consider whether the doctrine of estoppel could prevail over the statutory requirement of section 54A.

The court held that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of an agreement for an equitable charge. However, the court found that promissory estoppel could not be used to circumvent the statutory requirement of a written agreement under section 54A. The applicants' claim for the removal of the caveats was dismissed, and the caveats lodged by Rosenblum remained in place. The court reasoned that promissory estoppel is not a substitute for the statutory requirement of writing and cannot be used to enforce agreements that would otherwise be unenforceable under statute. The applicants were not entitled to the relief they sought.