Legal Research
Cases
Lucas v Salman

Lucas v Salman

Case [2022] NSWSC 1301 28 September 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lucas v Salman [2022] NSWSC 1301
Hearing dates: 1-4 November 2021
Decision date: 28 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Plaintiffs succeed in estoppel and are entitled to $211,892.84 plus interest.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS – Formation – Uncertainty – Intention to contract – Promissory estoppel – Testamentary promise – Detrimental reliance – Remedies
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by stepchild as alleged member of household and dependant for provision from the deceased’s estate under Succession Act 2006 (NSW) Ch 3 – Whether eligible person – Whether a member of household – Whether a dependant – Notional estate – Where property of the estate distributed – Joinder of third parties
SUCCESSION – Family provision – Claim by adult child – Application made out of time – Whether ‘sufficient cause’ pursuant to Succession Act 2006 (NSW) s 58(2)

Legislation Cited:
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3
Bassett v Cameron [2021] NSWSC 207
Bovaird v Frost [2009] NSWSC 337
Chisak v Presot [2022] NSWCA 100
Chu v Ngar [2015] NSWSC 1505
Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Brown (1958) 100 CLR 32; [1958] HCA 2
DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd (formerly called AIM Resources Ltd) (2011) 83 NSWLR 728; [2011] NSWCA 348
Durham v Durham (2011) 80 NSWLR 335; [2011] NSWCA 62
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95; [2002] HCA 8
Estate of Late Bryan [2022] NSWSC 965
Grant v Roberts; Smith v Smith; Roberts v Same; Curtis v Same [2019] NSWSC 843
Galaxadis v Galaxadis [2004] NSWCA 111
Heperu Pty Ltd v Belle (2009) 76 NSWLR 230; [2009] NSWCA 252
Howling v Kristofferson (1992, Supreme Court of NSW, Equity Div, unreported)
Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406; [1983] HCA 11
Low v Bouverie [1891] 3 Ch 82
Madden-Smith v Madden (Estate of the late Doris Linda Madden) [2012] NSWSC 146
Maynard v Maynard [2018] NSWSC 1961
McBride v Sandland (1918) 25 CLR 69 at 94; [1918] HCA 32
Moore v Aubusson [2020] NSWSC 1466
Nicholls v Michael Wilson & Partners Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 383
Pavlis v Pavlis [2021] NSWSC 1117
Phillips v James [2014] NSWCA 4
Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28
King v Adams [2016] NSWSC 1798
Ramsay v BigTinCan Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 324
Re Fulop (Dec’d) (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Saleh v Romanous (2010) 79 NSWLR 453; [2010] NSWCA 274
Spata v Tumino (2018) 95 NSWLR 706; [2018] NSWCA 17
Sreckovic v Sreckovic [2018] NSWSC 1597
Steinmetz v Shannon (2019) 99 NSWLR 687; [2019] NSWCA 114
Stewart v McDougall (Supreme Court (NSW), Young J, 19 November 1987, unreported)
Thomas v Pickering; Byrne v Pickering [2011] NSWSC 572
Varma v Varma [2010] NSWSC 786
Vukic v Grbin [2006] NSWSC 41
Walton v Walton (1994, Court of Appeal, Civ Div, unreported)
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; [1988] HCA…

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 Lucas v Salman

Details

AGLC: Lucas v Salman [2022] NSWSC 1301
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1301
Decision Date: 28 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Lucas v Salman involved the validity of a contract and the interpretation of testamentary promises made by the deceased to the claimant. The court had to determine whether a binding contract existed between the parties and if the claimant was entitled to enforce the promise under promissory estoppel. Additionally, the court addressed the succession claim made by the stepchild under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), determining whether the stepchild qualified as a member of the household and a dependant. The stepchild also sought a declaration regarding the distribution of the estate and the joinder of third parties in the proceedings.

The court first considered whether a binding contract existed between the parties, focusing on the intention to create legal relations and the clarity of the terms. The court also examined if the deceased's promise could be enforced under promissory estoppel, given the stepchild's detrimental reliance on that promise. Further, the court assessed the eligibility of the stepchild as a member of the household and a dependant under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), as well as the notional estate concept. Finally, the court evaluated the succession claim made out of time by the adult child, determining whether sufficient cause existed under section 58(2) of the Act.

The court concluded that while the contract was too uncertain to enforce, the stepchild could rely on promissory estoppel due to the clear intention and detrimental reliance on the deceased's promise. The stepchild was deemed a member of the household and a dependant, thus eligible for a claim under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The court found that the adult child's claim was made out of time but granted leave for the application due to sufficient cause. The court ordered the estate to provide appropriate provision to the stepchild and allowed the joinder of third parties in the succession claim.

Orders