Nolan v Nolan

Case [2014] QSC 218

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nolan v Nolan & Ors [2014] QSC 218

PARTIES:

DONNA MAREE NOLAN
(plaintiff)
v
ANTHONY GERARD NOLAN
(first defendant)
BRIAN KEVIN NOLAN
(second defendant)
MAJELLA ANNE NOLAN
(third defendant)
NOLAN & SON PTY LTD ACN 010 567 174
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 3338 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14, 15 16, 17, 21, 22 & 23 July 2014

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

The parties are to provide submissions as to the form of the orders and as to costs by 5 September 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

ESTOPPEL – ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT – PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL – where the plaintiff and first defendant were married for 18 years – during that 18 year period the plaintiff and the first defendant lived and worked on a property owned by the second and third defendants (the first defendant’s parents) – the plaintiff claims that she and the first defendant were induced into working on the property due to representations by the second and third defendants that they would one day inherit the property – where the plaintiff and the first defendant separated in 2009 – where the plaintiff claims a proprietary estoppel against the defendants for the fulfilment of the representation

EQUITY – TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES – IMPLIED TRUSTS – CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff and first defendant were married for 18 years – during that 18 year period they lived and worked on a property owned by the second and third defendants – where since 1993 the plaintiff and the defendants were involved in the management of the property and associated businesses – whether there was a joint endeavour between the plaintiff and the defendants – whether that joint endeavour created a constructive trust

Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1987) 164 CLR 137; [1987] HCA 59 followed
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483; [2010] NSWCA 84 cited
Donis v Donis [2007] VSCA 89 referred
Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641; [1937] HCA 85 cited

Flinn v Flinn [ [1999] 3 VR 712; [1999] VSCA 109 cited

Germanotta v Germanotta [2012] QSC 116 cited
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 at 323 cited
Muschinski v Dodds  (1985) 160 CLR 583; [1985] HCA 78 followed
Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19 cited
Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; [1988] HCA 7 cited
West v Mead (2003) 13 BPR 24,431 cited
Willetts v Marks [1994] QCA 006 cited

COUNSEL:

A J Greinke with G J Watson for the plaintiff

P J McCafferty for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Russells Lawyers for the defendants

The current proceedings

  1. Brian and Majella Nolan have successfully run a number of farming enterprises on the Darlings Downs for more than five decades. They are both in their early seventies and have been married for the…

Continue reading Nolan v Nolan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nolan v Nolan [2014] QSC 218
Case
[2014] QSC 218
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Nolan v Nolan involves a dispute between the plaintiff, who was married to the first defendant, and the second and third defendants, who are the first defendant's parents. The plaintiff claims that during their 18-year marriage, she and the first defendant worked on a property owned by the second and third defendants, relying on representations that they would inherit the property. The plaintiff and the first defendant separated in 2009, and the plaintiff seeks to enforce the alleged representation through a claim for proprietary estoppel.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the plaintiff and the first defendant were induced to work on the property based on the representations made by the second and third defendants, and if so, whether this entitles the plaintiff to a proprietary estoppel. Additionally, the court considered whether the involvement of the plaintiff in the management of the property and associated businesses with the second and third defendants since 1993 created a joint endeavour that could give rise to a constructive trust.

In its decision, the court examined the nature of the representations made by the second and third defendants and whether they were sufficiently clear and unequivocal to induce the plaintiff and the first defendant to rely on them. The court also assessed the conduct of the parties over the 18-year period to determine if there was a joint endeavour that could result in a constructive trust. The court found that the evidence supported the plaintiff's claims and ordered the parties to provide submissions regarding the form of the orders and costs by 5 September 2014.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties are to provide submissions as to the form of the orders and as to costs by 5 September 2014.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.