Salehi v Salehi

In the matter of Salehi v Salehi, the plaintiff sought to enforce an alleged oral promise by the defendant that she and her late husband would receive a transfer of a property they occupied. The defendants counterclaimed for restitutionary damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue was whether the defendant had made representations to the plaintiff and her late husband that they would receive the property. A secondary issue was the standing of the plaintiff to bring a claim in light of her husband's death intestate and the absence of letters of administration. A further issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to equitable compensation and what the proper measure of that compensation was. Finally, the court needed to determine whether the defendant was entitled to restitutionary damages.

The court found that there were no representations made by the defendant that the plaintiff and her late husband would receive the property. The court noted that even if such representations had been made, the plaintiff's standing to bring the claim would be limited. The court found that the plaintiff and her late husband carried out extensive renovations to the property in reliance on the alleged representations, but the defendant had not encouraged them to do so. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to equitable compensation for the sums she had expended on the renovations, plus interest. The court held that the value of the benefits received by the plaintiff during her occupation of the property did not extinguish or reduce her entitlement to compensation. The court found that the defendant was not entitled to restitutionary damages as there was no agreement, either express or implied, for the payment of rent in exchange for possession of the property.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to equitable compensation for the sums she had expended on the renovations, plus interest, and that the defendant's counterclaim for restitutionary damages was dismissed.