Sakellis v Vourlos - [2019] NSWSC 1063

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Sakellis v Vourlos [2019] NSWSC 1063
Hearing dates: 13 and 14 August 2019
Date of orders: 21 August 2019
Decision date: 21 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Judgment for the plaintiff for possession of land at 578 Pittwater Road, North Manly, with leave to issue a writ of possession forthwith

Catchwords: ESTOPPEL – proprietary estoppel – estoppel by representation – where plaintiff provided accommodation for niece and family including defendant husband – whether representation that defendant would have accommodation for life – after passing of niece defendant relocated to a second property owned by plaintiff – plaintiff claiming possession of second property – defendant claiming alteration of position – surrender of lease of assisted accommodation – representation not proved – occupation of second property permissive and terminable on reasonable notice
Cases Cited: Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Angela Sakellis - plaintiff
Constantine Vourlos - defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
J Young - plaintiff
T Liu - defendant
Solicitor:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers - plaintiff
Clayton Utz - defendant

File Number(s): 2018/177144
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

File Number(s):

2018/177144

Judgment

The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of a two storey, six bedroom freestanding house at 578 Pittwater Road at North Manly. The property has been occupied by the defendant, alone, since July 2015. The plaintiff claims possession of the property. The defendant resists that claim upon the basis of an alleged proprietary estoppel. He contends that in early 2009 the plaintiff represented that she would provide him with a house rent-free for the remainder of his life. He claims that in reliance upon alleged statements to that effect he altered his position in such a manner that it would now be unconscionable for the plaintiff to be allowed to renege.
The long chain of events leading to the defendant’s occupation of the North Manly property began with his marriage in 1986 to the plaintiff’s niece, the late Antonia Vourlos (née Sakellis). From April 2009 the plaintiff allowed her niece, the defendant and their two children to occupy rent-free a house she owns at 11A Edgecliffe Esplanade, Seaforth. Antonia Vourlos died on 29 July 2010. Thereafter the plaintiff permitted the defendant and the two children to remain in the Seaforth house, still not charging them rent. In July 2015 disharmony between the defendant and his son caused the plaintiff to offer the defendant temporary accommodation in the North Manly property, again rent-free. This offer was accepted and the defendant has lived at North Manly ever since, while his son has remained at Seaforth.
Relations between the plaintiff and the defendant broke down in late 2017 and the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate. He has refused. Resolution of the defendant’s proprietary estoppel claim depends upon the detail of this history.

Estrangement of the plaintiff and her niece, 2000-2008

The defendant was born in 1940 and is now 79 years old. Antonia Vourlos was considerably…

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 Sakellis v Vourlos

Details

AGLC: Sakellis v Vourlos [2019] NSWSC 1063
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1063
Decision Date: 21 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sakellis v Vourlos, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the nature of a promise made by the plaintiff to the defendant, who is his niece. The plaintiff, Sakellis, had provided accommodation for the defendant and her family in a property he owned, and the defendant now claimed an interest in a second property owned by the plaintiff based on the promise of accommodation for life. The case raised questions regarding the existence and effect of proprietary estoppel and estoppel by representation.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had made a clear and unequivocal representation to the defendant that she would have accommodation for life, which could lead to an estoppel in her favour. Additionally, the court had to assess the nature of the defendant's reliance on any such representation, and whether the defendant had altered her position to her detriment in reliance on the promise. The court also needed to consider the effect of the defendant surrendering her lease for assisted accommodation, and whether this constituted a relinquishment of any claim based on proprietary estoppel.

The High Court held that the plaintiff had not made a clear and unequivocal representation that the defendant would have accommodation for life. The court found that the occupation of the second property was permissive and terminable on reasonable notice, and therefore did not amount to a proprietary interest. The court also found that the defendant had not acted to her detriment in reliance on any representation, as the occupation of the second property was permissive and she had not acted on the basis of any promise made by the plaintiff. The court further held that the surrender of the lease for assisted accommodation did not amount to a relinquishment of any claim based on proprietary estoppel.

The High Court dismissed the defendant's claim and ordered that the plaintiff be granted possession of the second property. The court's decision underscores the importance of clear and unequivocal representations in proprietary estoppel claims, and highlights the need for a clear demonstration of reliance and detriment on the part of the defendant.

Orders