Penya v Penya

The case of Penya v Penya involved the daughter, who was the plaintiff, and her parents, who were the defendants, who co-owned a property. The plaintiff claimed that her parents had made repeated representations to her that, if she worked full-time in their real estate business without pay, she would be given the property and the business within her parents' lifetime. She worked in the business without pay for approximately 22 years. The father, who was one of the defendants, had sold the rent roll of the business and was seeking an order under section 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for the sale of the property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were estopped from denying her entitlement to the property, that the property should be held on constructive trust for her, and that she should account for the proceeds of the sale of the rent roll.

The court was required to decide whether the defendants had made the alleged representations to the plaintiff, and whether there was a common intention or agreement that the plaintiff would be given the property and the business within her parents' lifetime. The court also needed to determine whether there was a joint endeavour to enhance the material wellbeing of their family, and whether the property should be held on constructive trust for the plaintiff following the failure of the alleged joint endeavour.

The court held that the alleged representations were not made and that the plaintiff's claim for proprietary estoppel by encouragement failed. The court also found that there was no evidence of an agreement or common intention that the plaintiff would be given the property and the business within her parents' lifetime, and that the constructive trust claim failed. The court further held that there was no evidence of a joint endeavour to enhance the material wellbeing of their family, and that the constructive trust claim following the failure of the alleged joint endeavour also failed. The court found that the property should be sold, and that trustees for sale should be appointed. The court did not consider it necessary to address the issue of the statutory trust for sale.