Legal Research
Cases
Laird v Vallance

Laird v Vallance

Case [2023] VSCA 138 8 June 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2022 0037

STUART GRAEME LAIRD	Applicant
v
LACHLAN JAMES VALLANCE (AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLEN DOUGLAS LAIRD, DECEASED)	Respondent
S EAPCI 2022 0040

NEALE DOUGLAS LAIRD	Applicant
v
LACHLAN JAMES VALLANCE (IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLEN DOUGLAS LAIRD, DECEASED)	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 June 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 138
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VSC 352 (McMillan J)

---

ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Representations allegedly made by parents to one son that farm would pass to him – Whether representations ambiguous – Whether representations made – Whether reasonable for son to rely on alleged representations – Whether judge erred in failing to find that farm held on constructive trust for son – No error made by judge – Application for leave to appeal refused.

ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Representations allegedly made by parents to different son that farm would pass to him and other claimant son on the retirement or passing of parents – Farm left to both sons in parents’ wills – Whether representations made – Whether judge erred in considering representations separately – Parents’ representations ultimately fulfilled by leaving farm to sons in wills – No failure by parents to adhere to representations – No error by judge in dismissing proceeding – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant (Stuart Graeme Laird):	Mr PG Cawthorn KC with Mr S Thomas
Applicant (Neale Douglas Laird):	Mr SD Hay KC with Ms R Grayson Morison
Respondent:	Mr DV Aghion KC with Mr PD Reynolds
Solicitors
Applicant (Stuart Graeme Laird):	Andrews Legal Group
Applicant (Neale Douglas Laird):	MST Lawyers
Respondent:	Hicks Oakley Chessell Williams

BEACH JA
OSBORN JA:

In 1948, Keith and Ellen Laird married. They had seven children: Stuart, David, Eric, Clyde, Neale, Susan and Euan. In 1971, Keith and Ellen purchased a farm known as ‘Harkaway’. They lived at Harkaway for the balance of their lives. For many years, Neale lived at Harkaway and ran cattle on the property and Stuart operated a plant nursery on part of the property.
In 2012, Keith died. In 2018, Suzanne Lyttleton was appointed as the administrator of Ellen’s estate, due to Ellen’s declining cognitive function. During the administration of Ellen’s estate, Ms Lyttleton encountered difficulties in accessing liquid funds, and made a decision that Harkaway should be sold to provide for Ellen’s urgent care needs.
In 2020, three proceedings were commenced in the Trial Division relating to Harkaway:
(a)Ellen, by her administrator, commenced a proceeding against Neale and Stuart, pursuant to Order 53 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, seeking summary possession of Harkaway;
(b)Neale commenced a proceeding against Ms Lyttleton as Ellen’s administrator, in which he claimed that Harkaway was held on a constructive trust for him; and
(c)Stuart commenced a proceeding against Ellen by her administrator, Ms Lyttleton, in…

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 Laird v Vallance

Details

AGLC: Laird v Vallance [2023] VSCA 138
Case: [2023] VSCA 138
Decision Date: 8 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Laird v Vallance, the dispute involved claims of proprietary estoppel concerning the ownership of a farm. The plaintiffs, the sons of the deceased, sought to establish that the farm was held on trust for them based on alleged representations made by their parents. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The first son contended that his parents had assured him that the farm would pass to him, while the second son and another claimant argued that the parents had promised the farm to both of them. The parents had eventually left the farm to both sons in their wills.

The court was required to determine whether the parents made any representations regarding the ownership of the farm, and if so, whether these representations were ambiguous. The court also had to consider whether the sons had reasonably relied on any representations made. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge had erred in failing to find that the farm was held on a constructive trust for the sons and whether the judge had erred in considering the representations separately. The central issue was whether the parents' representations were ultimately fulfilled by leaving the farm to the sons in their wills.

The court found that the parents had indeed made representations to both sons, but these representations were not ambiguous. The court held that it was reasonable for the sons to rely on the representations made by their parents. However, the court determined that the parents' representations were ultimately fulfilled by leaving the farm to both sons in their wills. Consequently, there was no failure by the parents to adhere to their representations. The court found no error in the judge's decision, and both the sons' claims for proprietary estoppel were dismissed. The application for leave to appeal was also refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for proprietary estoppel was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The farm remained vested in the sons as per the parents' wills.

Orders