Sckaff v Sckaff

The appeal concerned a dispute between the registered proprietors of a property, the appellants, and the respondents who had occupied the property long-term without paying rent. The central issue was whether the respondents had established a claim of proprietary estoppel against the appellants.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in their findings of fact, particularly in relation to the evidence which had been affected by the passage of time and conflicting witness accounts. A key question was whether any findings were made on a basis not put to the parties or unsupported by the evidence. The court also had to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to support the findings that were made, and whether the primary judge had properly exercised their powers under s 75A of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that proprietary estoppel was not made out. The court reasoned that the appellants had not asserted ownership of the property in a way that would give rise to an estoppel, and that the evidence did not support the respondents' claim. The court set aside the orders of the primary judge and, in lieu, ordered that the defendants pay equitable compensation to the plaintiffs in the sum of $250,000, secured by an equitable charge over the property. The court also ordered the removal of a caveat lodged by the first respondent and directed the parties to agree on short minutes of order for the remaining relief or to provide submissions.