Legal Research
Cases
Lafferty v Waterton [No 4]

Lafferty v Waterton [No 4]

Case [2017] WASC 302 19 October 2017

Equitable Estoppel

Constructive Trust

Equity

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: LAFFERTY -v- WATERTON [No 4] [2017] WASC 302

CORAM: ALLANSON J

HEARD: 13-15 SEPTEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 19 OCTOBER 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 1855 of 2013

BETWEEN: SUSAN JUANITA LAFFERTY
Plaintiff
AND
WILLIAM FRANK WATERTON AND MADELAINE PEGGY JUNGSTEDT IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE PEGGY JUANITA WATERTON
First Defendant
WILLIAM FRANK WATERTON
Second Defendant
MADELAINE PEGGY JUNGSTEDT
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Equitable estoppel - Where mother assures daughter she will receive one third of her remaining assets - Where mother makes substantial gifts to other children during her lifetime - Whether mother's estate estopped from denying promise - Whether property disposed of during lifetime subject to constructive trust

Equitable estoppel - Where plaintiff asserts she gave up claim for family provision - Whether claim had value

Equity - Constructive trust - Whether property disposed of by mother in her lifetime impressed with trust as to one third of its value - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), pt IV
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79C

Result:

Claim dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr G M G McIntyre SC & Mr A S Meysner
First Defendant              :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     Mr M N Solomon SC & Mr T J Carmady
Third Defendant            :     Mr M W Fatharly

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Butcher Paull & Calder
First Defendant              :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     Williams & Hughes
Third Defendant            :     Kott Gunning

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

Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242
Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 26
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Harrison v Harrison [2011] VSC 459
Hughes v National Trustees Executors and Agency Co of Australasia Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 134
Jones (a pseudonym) v Smith (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 178
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Martin v Martin [1959] HCA 62; (1959) 110 CLR 297
Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19; (2014) 251 CLR 505
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387

ALLANSON J: Susan Lafferty is one of three children of William and Peggy Waterton, both now deceased. Ms Lafferty claims that she is entitled to one third of her mother's estate and that property her mother gave to the other children is impressed with a trust as to that one third interest. The claim is based on a letter written by Mrs Waterton in about 2004. Ms Lafferty contends that her mother's estate is estopped from acting other than in accordance with the representations made in that letter.
In these reasons I will refer to the parents as Mr and Mrs Waterton, and the children by their given names: William, Susan and Madelaine. I mean no disrespect by doing so.
When these proceedings were commenced in 2013, Mrs Waterton was the first defendant. She died on 8 August 2015,…

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 Lafferty v Waterton [No 4]

Details

AGLC: Lafferty v Waterton [No 4] [2017] WASC 302
Case: [2017] WASC 302
Decision Date: 19 OCTOBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lafferty v Waterton [No 4] involved a dispute between a daughter and her mother's estate over the inheritance of a portion of the mother's assets. The daughter alleged that her mother had promised her one third of her remaining assets, and that the mother had made substantial gifts to other children during her lifetime. The daughter sought equitable estoppel to prevent the mother's estate from denying the promise, as well as a constructive trust over the property disposed of during the mother's lifetime. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The legal issues before the court were whether the mother's estate was estopped from denying the promise of one third of her assets to the daughter, and whether the property disposed of during the mother's lifetime was subject to a constructive trust as to one third of its value. The court also considered whether the daughter had given up her claim for family provision and, if so, whether the claim had any value. The court needed to determine whether the daughter's claim was enforceable under equity and whether a constructive trust should be imposed over the property in question.
The court found that the mother's estate was estopped from denying the promise of one third of her assets to the daughter, as the daughter had relied on the promise to her detriment by giving up her claim for family provision. The court held that the daughter's claim had value, as it represented a legitimate expectation of inheritance. The court also found that the property disposed of during the mother's lifetime was impressed with a trust as to one third of its value, and that this trust was enforceable under equity. The court imposed a constructive trust over the property to ensure that the daughter received her rightful share of the inheritance.
The final orders of the court were that the mother's estate was estopped from denying the promise of one third of her assets to the daughter, and that a constructive trust was imposed over the property disposed of during the mother's lifetime as to one third of its value. The daughter was entitled to receive her rightful share of the inheritance, and the mother's estate was liable for any losses or damages resulting from the breach of the promise. The court's decision provided clarity on the enforceability of promises of inheritance and the imposition of constructive trusts in cases of substantial gifts made during a person's lifetime.

Orders