Protheroe v Protheroe (No. 3)

The appeal before the court involved a dispute between a father and son over the ownership of two properties used for farming. The son, who managed the properties, claimed that he was led to believe by his father that he would either inherit the properties upon the father's retirement or after his death. The son argued that he acted to his detriment in reliance on these representations, and that the father now holds the properties on constructive trust for him. The son sought an order that the father transfer the properties to him at the time of his retirement and thereafter conduct a small business. The court found in favour of the son, and the father appealed the decision. The son, in turn, cross-appealed on the basis that the relief granted was insufficient.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the son's alternative claim, based on the inheritance representations, should have moulded final relief, and if so, what relief would have been granted in relation to those representations. The court had to determine whether the son's conduct in reliance on the inheritance representations was sufficient to found an equitable estoppel, and if so, what remedy would be appropriate. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate costs order in light of the outcome of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court found that the son's inheritance representations were reasonable and that he had acted to his detriment in reliance on them. The court held that it would have been inequitable for the father to deny the son the benefit of those representations. The court held that if the inheritance representations had moulded final relief, the son would have been entitled to an order that the father transfer the properties to him upon his retirement or after his death, depending on which representation was relied upon. The court also found that it was appropriate to make a specified gross sum costs order, rather than assessed costs, to allow for certainty in the quantum of costs to be paid, given the planned future conveyancing transaction and capital management. The court fixed the quantum of the specified gross sum costs order.

The court dismissed the father's appeal and allowed the son's cross-appeal in part. The court held that the son was entitled to an order that the father transfer the properties to him upon his retirement, and that the specified gross sum costs order should be made in favour of the son. The court ordered that the father pay the son's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis, and that a specified gross sum costs order be made in favour of the son in the amount of $150,000.