Radonich v Radonich

The case of Radonich v Radonich involved a dispute over the ownership of real property between the parties. The issue before the court was whether the registered proprietor of the property could be estopped from asserting title due to representations made and acted upon by the other party. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) applied to the case, particularly in relation to the concept of adverse possession by a tenant at will or a licensee. The case also addressed whether the possession by a licensee could be considered adverse, and if the limitation period applied to a joint tenancy where profits were received by consent of the other joint tenant.

The court examined the principles of estoppel and the effect of representations by the registered proprietor, concluding that if such representations were made and acted upon to the detriment of the other party, the registered proprietor could be estopped from asserting title. The court further analysed the applicability of the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA), specifically s 9 and s 14, to determine whether the possession by a tenant at will or a licensee could be considered adverse. The court held that possession by a licensee, when not adverse, did not trigger the limitation period. The court also clarified that under a joint tenancy, profits received by consent of the other joint tenant did not create a legal right to sole receipt of profits or a sole right to title, and thus did not activate the limitation period as per s 14 of the Limitation Act 1935 (WA).

The court ruled that the registered proprietor was estopped from asserting title due to the representations made and the other party's reliance on those representations. The limitation period under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) did not apply in this case because the possession by the licensee was not adverse. The court clarified that the decision in Paradise Beach Transportation Co Ltd v Price Robinson [1968] AC 1072 was not followed, as the circumstances did not support the creation of a right to sole title based on the receipt of profits by consent of the other joint tenant. The final orders of the court were that the registered proprietor was estopped from asserting title, and the limitation period did not apply to the case.