Reynolds v Reynolds - [2012] WASC 378

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: REYNOLDS -v- REYNOLDS [2012] WASC 378

CORAM: KENNETH MARTIN J

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 10 OCTOBER 2012

FILE NO/S: CIV 1978 of 2011

BETWEEN: TODD BENJAMIN REYNOLDS
Plaintiff
AND
ESTHER REYNOLDS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Promissory estoppel - Detriment - More detail of detriment required - Request for further and better particulars opposed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: No appearance
Defendant: No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Michael Rogers & Associates
Defendant: Robertson Hayles Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Clifton v Chinnery [2011] WASC 294
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101

KENNETH MARTIN J: This is an application by the defendant seeking further and better particulars of pars 20 and 27 of the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim filed 19 June 2012 (ASOC).
The defendant has requested further detail and clarification from the plaintiff in relation to his contention concerning detriment, which he asserts at par 27, by particulars which repeat pars 12, 17, 20 and 23 of the ASOC.
The plaintiff's action seeks what would appear to be equitable relief, invoking arguments reliant upon promissory estoppel. This is advanced in circumstances where, after the death of the plaintiff's father on 26 July 2007, the defendant is said to have effectively promised him a quarter share of the value of assets as described in his father's will. The alleged promise has not been adhered to by the defendant, so promissory estoppel is invoked to essentially enforce that promise or (as it is put in the pleading) to make good the plaintiff's 'assumption' about receiving the quarter share of the value of the assets in the will from the defendant.
The dispute arises in circumstances where the late Mr Reynolds looks to have attempted to bequeath some of his assets on a basis of providing a quarter share to his son (the plaintiff) and a one‑half share to the defendant (with the other quarter share going to the late Mr Reynolds' grandchildren).
Difficulties present because it would appear that at the date of Mr Reynolds' death in July 2007, properties he had sought to deal with under his will were in fact owned jointly with his then wife, the defendant, and by orthodox principles of survivorship, joint assets pass at Mr Reynolds' death to his widow, rather than passing in accordance with the will.
That is the context in which the plaintiff seeks to contend that notwithstanding the legal effects of the survivorship principle applying in favour of the defendant to deny him quarter shares in assets he might otherwise have received under the will, he was nevertheless later promised the same quarter share in those assets by the defendant, and giving rise to what he pleads as his assumption (see par 10 of the ASOC).
There is no dispute that for the plaintiff to make good a promissory estoppel case against the defendant, the plaintiff…

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 Reynolds v Reynolds

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Reynolds [2012] WASC 378
Case: [2012] WASC 378
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the parties, Reynolds and Reynolds, concerning the application of promissory estoppel. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the respondent had suffered a detriment sufficient to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the appellant. This matter arose out of a family dispute involving the ownership and management of a family-owned property.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was the extent to which the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked in this context, specifically focusing on the requirement of detriment. The respondent claimed that the appellant had made a promise that the respondent would be able to live in a family home for the rest of their life, and that this promise should be enforced despite the lack of formal written agreement. The court was tasked with determining whether the detriment claimed by the respondent was sufficiently detailed and substantial to warrant the enforcement of the promise.

The court held that the respondent had not provided sufficient detail regarding the nature and extent of the detriment suffered as a result of the appellant's promise. The respondent's evidence was described as vague and insufficient to meet the requirements for promissory estoppel. Consequently, the court opposed the request for further and better particulars, ruling that the respondent's claim for detriment was not adequately substantiated. The court emphasised that for promissory estoppel to be applicable, the detriment must be clearly and convincingly demonstrated.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled in favour of the appellant, dismissing the respondent's claim. The court determined that the respondent had failed to provide adequate particulars concerning the detriment suffered, and thus the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be applied in this instance. The court did not grant the respondent's request for further and better particulars, thereby upholding the appellant's position.

Orders