Legal Research
Cases
Ransley v Ransley

Ransley v Ransley

Case [2023] TASSC 1 20 February 2023

Contract Formation

Statutory Interpretation

Unconscionable Conduct

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

[2023] TASSC 1

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Ransley v Ransley [2023] TASSC 1

PARTIES:  RANSLEY, Christopher Carson
  RANSLEY, Paula June
  v
  RANSLEY, Steven Ernest

FILE NO:  3187/2019
DELIVERED ON:  20 February 2023
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  20, 21, 23 September 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Contracts – General contractual principles – Statute of Frauds, Section 4 – Non-compliance with statute – Doctrine of part performance – What acts constitutes part performance – Acts not constituting part performance – Fortnightly payments to registered proprietors, payments of rates and maintenance of property – Proprietor asserting agreement to rent property – Acts not unequivocally referrable to agreement for purchase.
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1884 (Tas), s 36

Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467; Maiden v Maiden (1909) 7 CLR 727; McBride v Sandland (1918) 25 CLR 69; Pipikos v Trayans [2018] HCA 39, 265 CLR 522, followed.

Aust Dig Contracts [78]
Equity – 1
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353, distinguished.
Aust Dig Equity [1110]
Estoppel – Estoppel by conduct – Proprietary Estoppel - Promise to transfer title to purchasers upon them reimbursing vendors for purchase price, loan interest and expenses – Representees acted to detriment by foregoing opportunity to purchase house from Director of Housing over time – Appropriate equitable relief.

Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] 1 Ch 179; Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; Public Trustee v Wadley (1997) 7 Tas R 35; Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10, 196 CLR 101, referred to.

Aust Dig Estoppel [1048]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiffs:  C Schokman, C Street
             Defendant:  C Groves, E J Burrows-Cheng
Solicitors:
             Plaintiffs:  Ogilvie Jennings
             Defendant:  Dobson, Mitchell & Allport
Judgment Number:  [2023] TASSC 1
Number of paragraphs:  76

Serial No 1/2023
File No 3187/2019

CHRISTOPHER CARSON RANSLEY and PAULA JUNE RANSLEY v
STEVEN ERNEST RANSLEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

20 February 2023

In 1996 the defendant, Steven Ransley, and his wife Rosalie bought a property at 154 Eldon Road, Colebrook for $35,000 as joint tenants. Some weeks later the plaintiffs, Christopher Ransley and Paula Ransley, moved into the house on that property. They have lived there ever since. Christopher Ransley is one of the defendant's brothers. From September 1996 until September 2021 the plaintiffs made fortnightly payments in respect of the property to the defendant and his wife. She died in 2010. The plaintiffs contend that they made those payments pursuant to an oral agreement by which the defendant promised that he would transfer the title to the property to them once the total of their payments reached the sum of $35,000 plus the interest on a loan that he obtained to fund the purchase, plus his expenses relating to the purchase. This is an action for specific performance of that alleged agreement. The plaintiffs contend that they have paid all that they promised to…

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 Ransley v Ransley

Details

AGLC: Ransley v Ransley [2023] TASSC 1
Case: [2023] TASSC 1
Decision Date: 20 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this appeal were husband and wife, with the husband appealing a decision that his wife had a beneficial interest in a property in which she had resided for many years. The dispute arose out of an agreement between the parties that the husband would purchase the property, but there was no written contract in place. The appeal was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the acts of the parties amounted to a part performance of the contract such that the oral agreement would be enforceable despite non-compliance with the Statute of Frauds. The court had to determine whether the acts of the parties amounted to part performance of the contract.

The court found that the wife had performed acts that could be construed as referring to the agreement to purchase the property. However, the court found that the acts were not unequivocal and could be explained by the wife's occupation of the property as a tenant. The court found that the fortnightly payments to the registered proprietors, payments of rates and maintenance of the property did not constitute acts of part performance. The court found that these acts were not referrable to the agreement for the purchase of the property.

The outcome of the appeal was that the wife did not have a beneficial interest in the property. The court found that the acts of the parties did not amount to part performance of the contract and therefore the oral agreement was unenforceable. The husband's appeal was dismissed. The court made no further orders.

Orders