Rhodes v Badenach - [2000] TASSC 160

[2000] TASSC 160

CITATION: Rhodes v Badenach & Anor [2000] TASSC 160

PARTIES:  RHODES, Jonathon Keith
  v
  BADENACH, Robert John

NELSON, Alma Isobel as executors of the
estate of Sydney Lionel Richardson (deceased)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  Original
FILE NO/S:  883/1997
DELIVERED ON:  14 November 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  20 - 22, 25 - 29 September 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Equity - General principles - Rules and maxims of equity - He who seeks equity must do equity - Clean hands - Conditional order for equitable compensation.

Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538, applied.
Aust Dig Equity [1]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  G L Sealy
             Defendants:  K B Procter and S K Kempton
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Piggott Wood & Baker
             Defendants:  Murdoch Clarke

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 160
Number of Paragraphs: 54

Serial No 160/2000
File No 883/1997

JONATHON KEITH RHODES v ROBERT JOHN BADENACH
and ALMA ISOBEL NELSON as executors of the estate of
Sydney Lionel Richardson (deceased)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

14 November 2000

The plaintiff has sued the defendants for a declaration that they hold certain land at Sandford upon trust for him, orders requiring them to do all things necessary to transfer that land to him, and a number of alternative equitable remedies, including equitable compensation. He has sought those remedies on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The land claimed by the plaintiff has an area, by my calculations, of about 3,500 square metres. The improvements on it include a cottage ("the shack"), another residential building ("the bungalow"), and the greater part of a shed. The claimed land does not have a separate title, but is part of Lot 3 on sealed plan 27499. Lot 3 is the land comprised in Certificate of Title volume 27489 folio 3. The late Sydney Lionel Richardson was the registered proprietor of that lot prior to his death on 5 September 1996. The defendants are his executors.

The plaintiff went to live in the shack in September 1979. He did so by arrangement with its previous occupant, a Mr Ford, who had decided to move out. Mr Ford had been paying Mrs Richardson, the wife of the deceased, $80 per month by way of rent. She lived in the main farmhouse on what is now Lot 3, but Mr Richardson was not living there at the time. The plaintiff apparently did not consult anyone but Mr Ford before occupying the shack in place of him, but he commenced paying rent of $80 per month to Mrs Richardson, and she accepted that rent.

The land in question has been in the Richardson family for generations. In 1979, it formed part of 60 acres owned by the late Mr Richardson and his brother, William Henry Keith Richardson, as tenants in common in equal shares. The brother conveyed his share to two women, probably his daughters, by way of gift in 1982. In 1986, the 60 acres were brought under the Land Titles…

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 Rhodes v Badenach

Details

AGLC: Rhodes v Badenach [2000] TASSC 160
Case: [2000] TASSC 160
Decision Date: 14 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rhodes v Badenach, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendants held certain land upon trust for him, orders requiring them to transfer the land to him, and alternative equitable remedies, including equitable compensation. The plaintiff argued that he was led to believe by Mrs Richardson, in the presence of the late Mr Richardson, that the shack on the land was left to him in Mr Richardson's will. The defendants contended that the alleged conversation never took place and that the plaintiff's actions were not detrimental. The court found that the plaintiff's claims of social security fraud and dishonesty in other matters caused some suspicion regarding his evidence, but there was substantial evidence to support the claim that Mrs Richardson did tell the plaintiff that Mr Richardson had left the shack to him by will. The court also found that the plaintiff did rely on this representation to his detriment by working for Mr Richardson without pay and making improvements to the land. However, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for relief should be conditional on him repaying the Commonwealth for his social security fraud. The court awarded the plaintiff $35,000 in compensation and gave the parties liberty to apply for interest and an occupation rent.

Orders