Ronowska v Kus - [2012] NSWSC 280

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ronowska v Kus [2012] NSWSC 280
Hearing dates: 20, 21 and 22 March 2012
Decision date: 22 March 2012
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Pembroke J
Decision:
See paragraph [47]

Catchwords: ESTOPPEL - Equitable proprietary estoppel - primary importance of providing just and conscionable satisfaction of the plaintiff's expectation - no requirement that unfulfilled expectation be precisely quantified and valued - relevance of change in circumstances after promise made
CONTRACT - Intention - Contracts between family members - relevance of the relationship between parties, context and absence of formality
Legislation Cited: Migration Regulations, 1994 (Cth)
Succession Act, 2006
Cases Cited: Ashton v Pratt (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 3
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101
Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159
Riches v Hogben [1985] 2 Qd R 292
Tadrous v Tadrous [2010] NSWSC 1388
Texts Cited: Estoppel & The Protection of Expectations, Elizabeth Cooke [1997] 17 LS 258
The Remedial Discretion in Proprietary Estoppel, Simon Gardner (1999) 115 LQR 438
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Krystyna Urszula Ronowska - plaintiff
Ludwig Kus - defendant
Representation: Counsel:
D M Roberts - for the plaintiff
M W Hadley - for the defendant
Solicitors:
George West - for the plaintiff
Maclarens Lawyers - for the defendant

File Number(s): 2011/257705

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff is a 67-year-old widow. She was born in Poland and lived there until 2005. Her husband died in 1995. She has a son and a daughter. The defendant is the uncle of the plaintiff. He is now at least 90 years of age, suffering from dementia and unable to give evidence. His wife died a considerable time ago. The plaintiff's case is that at the defendant's request she gave up her life in Poland and came to live with the defendant in his home at Greystanes in Sydney. She says she did so because the defendant promised her that she could live in his house for the rest of her life in return for caring for him. The defendant's sons have now evicted her from the house and entered into a contract for the sale of the property.

The case raises an issue about the nature and extent of relief to which a plaintiff is entitled in an equitable proprietary estoppel claim. In particular, it concerns the importance of making good an expectation by encouragement or representation and it raises a question as to whether the aim of this type of estoppel is to fulfil the plaintiff's expectations or to quantify her detrimental reliance and compensate her accordingly, or whether some intermediate objective is appropriate. See: Estoppel & The Protection of Expectations, Elizabeth Cooke [1997] 17 LS 258; The Remedial Discretion in Proprietary Estoppel, Simon Gardner (1999) 115 LQR 438.

There is, I think, no controversy in New South Wales, as to the applicable general principles. They are embodied in the following statements by Allsop P in Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483 at…

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 Ronowska v Kus

Details

AGLC: Ronowska v Kus [2012] NSWSC 280
Case: [2012] NSWSC 280
Decision Date: 22 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ronowska v Kus, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether a woman was entitled to a share of her former partner's property, following an agreement they had made. The respondent had promised the applicant a share of the property, which he owned with his current partner, and the applicant had relied on this promise to her detriment by foregoing other opportunities. The applicant sought an equitable proprietary estoppel, seeking to enforce the promise. The respondent argued that there was no enforceable agreement between them, and that the applicant's expectations had not been precisely quantified and valued.

The court considered whether the applicant had established a clear and unequivocal promise, that she had relied on it to her detriment, and that it would be inequitable for the respondent to renege on the promise. The court noted that it was not necessary for the applicant to precisely quantify and value her expectation, and that the primary importance was providing just and conscionable satisfaction of her expectation. The court also considered the nature of the relationship between the parties, the context in which the promise was made, and the absence of formality. The court found that the respondent had made a clear and unequivocal promise, and that the applicant had relied on it to her detriment. The court further found that it would be inequitable for the respondent to renege on the promise, and that the applicant was entitled to a share of the property.

The court also considered whether the agreement between the parties was binding, despite the absence of formality. The court noted that the relationship between the parties, the context in which the promise was made, and the reliance by the applicant on the promise were relevant factors in determining whether there was an intention to create legal relations. The court found that there was an intention to create legal relations, and that the agreement was binding. The court ordered that the respondent transfer a 50% share of the property to the applicant.

In summary, the court found in favour of the applicant, granting her a 50% share of the property owned by the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of providing just and conscionable satisfaction of the applicant's expectation, and found that the respondent's promise was clear and unequivocal, and that the applicant had relied on it to her detriment. The court also found that the agreement between the parties was binding, despite the absence of formality.

Orders