Legal Research
Cases
Priestley v Priestley

Priestley v Priestley

Case [2016] NSWSC 1096 15 August 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Priestley v Priestley [2016] NSWSC 1096
Hearing dates: 17-20 August 2015
Decision date: 15 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: White J
Decision:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $293,071.98 plus interest pursuant to s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) calculated from 26 April 2010.
2. Order that the plaintiff’s claims for relief be otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords:
CONTRACT — Deceased made a will leaving entire estate to the plaintiff — Plaintiff provided services and made payments for the deceased in the belief that he would inherit the deceased’s estate — Deceased changed his will without informing the plaintiff — Whether testamentary contract entered into between the plaintiff and deceased — Deceased did not promise to make a will in the plaintiffs favour and not revoke it — Parties did not intend to enter into a contract — No testamentary contract found;

ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel — Whether executrix of deceased’s estate estopped from denying that the plaintiff is to inherit the deceased’s estate — Deceased knew plaintiff expected to inherit his estate — Deceased feared plaintiff would cease offering assistance if informed of changes to the will — Plaintiff knew deceased could change his will — Whether plaintiff would have continued to assist the deceased had he known of changes to the will — Not unconscionable for deceased to depart from state of affairs that plaintiff assumed would obtain — Proprietary estoppel not established;
RESTITUTION - Whether deceased’s estate unjustly enriched by plaintiff’s actions — Plaintiff laboured and made payments for expenses incurred by the deceased under a present mistake of fact — Plaintiff entitled to reasonable remuneration
Cases Cited: Air Great Lakes Pty Ltd v KS Easter (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 309
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Limited [1982] QB 84
Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Self-Serve Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540
Barnes v Alderton [2008] NSWSC 107; (2008) 13 BPR 25,281
Brambles Holdings Limited v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153
Cadorange Pty Ltd (in liq) v Tanga Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 26
Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 1 WLR 2042
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi [2014] NSWSC 1717; (2015) 17 BPR 33,457
Dann v Spurrier (1802) 7 Ves 231
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook [2010] NSWCA 84; (2010) 78 NSWLR 483
Dextra Bank & Trust Co v Bank of Jamaica [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 193
Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 105
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10; (1996) 196 CLR 101
Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52;

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 Priestley v Priestley

Details

AGLC: Priestley v Priestley [2016] NSWSC 1096
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1096
Decision Date: 15 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the plaintiff, who had provided services and made payments to the deceased under the belief that he would inherit the deceased’s estate as per the will. The deceased subsequently changed his will without notifying the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to enforce a testamentary contract, arguing that the deceased had promised to leave his estate to him, and that the deceased should be estopped from denying this promise. The court was required to determine whether a testamentary contract existed between the plaintiff and the deceased, whether the deceased’s executrix was estopped from denying the plaintiff’s inheritance, and if the deceased’s estate was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff’s actions.

The court first addressed the issue of the testamentary contract. It concluded that no such contract was established as the deceased had not made any promise to leave his estate to the plaintiff nor to refrain from revoking the will. Additionally, the court found that there was no intention between the parties to enter into a formal contract. The court then considered the claim of proprietary estoppel, finding that while the deceased was aware that the plaintiff expected to inherit the estate and might cease assistance if informed of the changes to the will, it was not unconscionable for the deceased to depart from the assumed state of affairs. The court found that the plaintiff would likely have continued to assist the deceased even if aware of the changes to the will. Consequently, proprietary estoppel was not established. Lastly, the court examined the restitution claim, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable remuneration for the services rendered under a present mistake of fact.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable remuneration for the services provided to the deceased, reflecting the unjust enrichment of the deceased's estate due to the plaintiff's labour and payments. No testamentary contract was found, and the claim of proprietary estoppel was dismissed.

Orders