Malhotra v Tiwari

In the case of Malhotra v Tiwari, the plaintiff, Mr. Malhotra, initiated proceedings against the first and second defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Tiwari, in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The dispute centres around an alleged express trust established by Mr. Malhotra in favour of the first defendant, based on certain representations made. The first defendant has argued that the written representation on which the trust is based is not their work, invoking the doctrine of non est factum, and has also raised the principles of promissory estoppel as a defence.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues, including whether an express trust existed based on the representations made, whether the first defendant could successfully rely on the doctrine of non est factum, and if the principles of promissory estoppel could be applied in this context. The court also needed to consider whether the first defendant's right to rely on non est factum was undermined by the presumption of advancement, and whether the court had the power to mould appropriate relief in light of any illegal or unconscionable conduct.

The court found that the first defendant could not rely on the doctrine of non est factum, as the evidence did not support their claim that the written representation was not their work. The court also held that the principles of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case, as there was no clear and unequivocal promise made by Mr. Malhotra that the first defendant could rely upon. The court further determined that the right of the first defendant to rely on non est factum was compromised by the presumption of advancement, which had been rebutted in this case. The court concluded that it had the authority to mould appropriate relief, taking into account any illegal or unconscionable conduct.

The court ordered that the first defendant return the property to Mr. Malhotra and that any profits made from the property be paid to Mr. Malhotra. The court also ordered that the second defendant pay Mr. Malhotra compensation for the use of the property during the time it was in their possession. The first defendant was further ordered to pay Mr. Malhotra's legal costs.