Sayers v Sayers

Case [2018] NSWCA 301


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Sayers v Sayers [2018] NSWCA 301
Hearing dates: 25 October 2018
Date of orders: 10 December 2018
Decision date: 10 December 2018
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Emmett AJA at [2];
Simpson AJA at [96]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including costs of the notice of motion of 22 October 2018.

Catchwords: EQUITY – respondent is Toni, the wife of the first appellant’s brother – first appellant and his deceased brother held equal shares in a property as tenants in common – on brother’s death, title in the property was transmitted to the respondent – first appellant and respondent could not agree on sale of the property and first appellant brought proceedings under the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 66G for the appointment of trustees for sale – trustees were appointed and property was sold at public auction to first appellant and his wife, the second appellant – dispute arose regarding entitlement to the proceeds of sale and the payment of mortgage and sale expenses – respondent claimed that sum in discharge of mortgage was impermissibly deducted from her sale proceeds – first appellant then brought claim relying on contract and promissory estoppel alleging that his deceased brother had promised that the property would pass to the first appellant’s sons, the third and fourth appellants, on his death – primary judge found that respondent’s claim was made out – primary judge dismissed the first appellant’s contract and estoppel claim – whether primary judge erred in certain factual findings
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Ashton v Pratt [2015] NSWCA 12
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Keith James Sayers (First Appellant)
Inesita Sayers (Second Appellant)
George Sayers (Third Appellant)
Neil Sayers (Fourth Appellant)
Toni Sayers (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
G W McGrath with C P Locke (Appellants)
D Robertson (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Oliveri Lawyers (Appellants)
Baker Deane & Nutt Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/190838
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Equity
Citation:
[2018] NSWSC 519
Date of Decision:
25 May 2018
Before:
Slattery J
File Number(s):
2015/209931

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The principal question in this appeal is whether the third and fourth appellants, George Sayers and Neil Sayers (together, the Sons), who are sons of the first appellant, Keith James Sayers (Cec), have any interest in the estate of the late James Keith Sayers (Bill) or the moiety in a farming property situated at Dryaaba, New South Wales (the Property) held by Bill at the date of his death. Cec was the holder of the other moiety. Cec and Bill were brothers

On 16 June 2008, Bill died intestate without issue. On 8 December 2008, letters of administration in respect of his estate were granted to the respondent, Toni…

Continue reading Sayers v Sayers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sayers v Sayers [2018] NSWCA 301
Case
[2018] NSWCA 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Sayers v Sayers* concerned the entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a property held by the first appellant and his deceased brother as tenants in common. Following the brother's death, his share in the property was transmitted to the respondent, his wife. Disagreement over the sale of the property led the first appellant to initiate proceedings under section 66G of the *Conveyancing Act 1919* (NSW) for the appointment of trustees for sale. Trustees were appointed, and the property was subsequently sold at public auction to the first appellant and his wife, the second appellant. The core of the dispute revolved around the distribution of these sale proceeds, specifically whether the respondent was entitled to a greater share than awarded, and the first appellant's claim that the property was promised to his sons. The appeal was heard by Macfarlan JA, Emmett AJA, and Simpson AJA.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge erred in factual findings concerning the respondent's claim regarding the deduction of mortgage discharge sums from her sale proceeds. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the first appellant's claim based on contract and promissory estoppel, which alleged a promise by his deceased brother that the property would pass to the first appellant's sons upon his death.

The court's reasoning affirmed the primary judge's findings. The primary judge had found the respondent's claim to be made out, concluding that the sum used to discharge the mortgage had been impermissibly deducted from her sale proceeds. The first appellant's claim, relying on contract and promissory estoppel, was dismissed by the primary judge, and the appellate court found no error in this determination. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including the costs of a specific notice of motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including costs of the notice of motion of 22 October 2018.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.