Joan Phyllis Quinn v Susan Bryant - [2011] NSWSC 1153

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Joan Phyllis Quinn v Susan Bryant [2011] NSWSC 1153
Hearing dates: 9 June 2011, 10 June 2011, 2 September 2011
Decision date: 14 October 2011
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
See paragraphs 152 - 156 of Judgment

Catchwords: Promissory estoppel - Constructive Trust - Equitable damages - Detriment - Reliance
Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act 1987
Cases Cited: Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583
Tasevska v Vlado (Larry) Tasevski & Anor [2011] NSWSC 174
Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1
Steinberg and Others v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 134 CLR 640
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joan Phyllis Quinn v Susan Bryant
Representation: Counsel
F F Salama - plaintiff
R Wilson - defendant
solicitors
Scott Richardson, Vizzone Ruggero & Associates - plaintiff
Vasso P Tsolakis, Tsolakis Solicitors - defendant

File Number(s): 2011/45569

Judgment

The Proceedings

The plaintiff and defendant in these proceedings are grandmother and granddaughter respectively.

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the defendant does not have any equitable interest or estate in a property known as 581 Princes Highway, Blakehurst. Further declarations are sought in respect of certain funds said to be held or received by the defendant as the result of the sale of a property previously owned by the plaintiff in Chifley. There is also a claim for equitable damages. A declaration is also sought that the defendant breached her fiduciary duties pursuant to a power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 17 September 2009.

The plaintiff also seeks possession of the property at Blakehurst and an order that the defendant be restrained from re-entering the premises.

In her cross claim the defendant seeks an order that the cross defendant holds the Blakehurst property on constructive trust for the term of the cross defendant's life or such shorter period as the cross claimant shall determine. An order is also sought that the cross claimant be entitled to licence the residence for the term of the life of the cross defendant by the payment of an occupation fee or rent of $200 per week or such other amount as the court shall determine. The cross claimant makes an offer to care for or look after the cross defendant during that time but in the alternative she seeks an order for compensation in equitable damages for the detriment she has suffered or damages for breach of contract.

Background Facts

The plaintiff turned 87 years of age on 21 July 2011. The events the subject of this litigation took place in 2009 and 2010. She is the grandmother of the defendant Susan Bryant who is presently aged 46 years.

The plaintiff's husband passed away approximately 35 years ago. The plaintiff's daughter Elizabeth took over the management of her financial affairs and managed them…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Joan Phyllis Quinn v Susan Bryant and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 1153
Decision Date: 14 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Joan Phyllis Quinn versus Susan Bryant, the dispute involved the application of promissory estoppel and the imposition of a constructive trust, as well as the awarding of equitable damages. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether Susan Bryant was estopped from denying a promise made to Joan Phyllis Quinn, leading to the creation of a constructive trust over certain property, and if so, what equitable damages should be awarded.

The court examined whether Joan had relied on a promise made by Susan to the extent that it caused detriment. The promise in question was whether Susan would allow Joan to remain in a property in exchange for her financial support. The court had to determine if this reliance was reasonable and if it resulted in a detriment that would warrant the application of promissory estoppel. Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether a constructive trust should be imposed, and if so, what its scope should be. Finally, the court needed to assess whether equitable damages should be awarded to Joan for the detriment suffered as a result of Susan's actions.

The court found that Joan's reliance on Susan's promise was reasonable and that she suffered a detriment as a result of that reliance. The court imposed a constructive trust over the property in question in favour of Joan, reflecting the court's determination that Susan could not deny the promise she made. The court also awarded equitable damages to Joan to compensate for the detriment she suffered. The court concluded that the constructive trust and the equitable damages were appropriate remedies to address the breach of the promise. The court ordered that Susan should hold the property on a constructive trust for Joan and that Susan should pay equitable damages to Joan for the detriment suffered.

Orders