Kramer v Stone

The appellants, the executors of the estate of the deceased, appealed a decision of the primary judge concerning a claim of proprietary estoppel brought by the respondent, a sharefarmer. The respondent alleged that the deceased had promised to leave him the property on which he had worked for approximately 40 years, and that he had continued to work the property in reliance on this promise, to his detriment. The deceased's will, however, did not reflect this alleged promise.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the deceased needed to have actual knowledge of the respondent's detrimental reliance on the representation for the doctrine of proprietary estoppel to be established, and whether the appellants should be permitted to rely on evidence adduced at a subsequent hearing before final orders were made, for the purposes of an appeal under section 75A of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal affirmed that actual knowledge of the specific detriment suffered by the claimant is not a prerequisite for establishing proprietary estoppel. It is sufficient if the promisor intended their representation to be acted upon and that detriment would likely flow from such reliance. The Court also held that the evidence sought to be adduced by the appellants was not "further evidence" within the meaning of section 75A of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW) as it was not evidence that could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the first hearing.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ notice of motion and the appeal, with costs.