Legal Research
Cases
Stenlake v Whipps

Stenlake v Whipps

Case [2016] NSWSC 719 6 June 2016

Contract Formation

Repudiation & Termination

Unconscionable Conduct

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Stenlake v Whipps [2016] NSWSC 719
Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11 March and 9 June 2015
Date of orders: 06 June 2016
Decision date: 06 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Declaration as against both defendants that the Coraki property is charged in equity with the repayment to the plaintiff of a sum representing his expenditure in improving the main house on the Coraki property from 2007, the value of which is assessed in the sum of $100,000. Order that the Mercedes Benz motor vehicle given to the deceased be returned to the second defendant as executrix of the estate of the late Lola Denise Whipps. Orders made for the plaintiff to return certain estate jewellery and personal effects to the second defendant as executor of the estate. Directions made for the parties to lodge submissions in relation to supplementary issues of relief and costs. Proceedings relisted for argument as to costs at 9.30am on 12 August 2016.

Catchwords:
CONTRACT – oral agreement alleged between the plaintiff and his then domestic partner that the plaintiff would expend money to renovate the main house on a property at Coraki in northern NSW owned by the partner and her sister, and that the plaintiff and his partner would have the right to occupy the property during their joint lifetimes and that the plaintiff would then have the right to occupy the property after his partner’s death - plaintiff expends money on the renovation of the main house from 2007 – after the death of the partner, her executrix and the sister/co-owner of the land refuse the plaintiff access to the Coraki property – whether the executrix has repudiated the agreement – whether and if so what damages the plaintiff has suffered as a result of such repudiation.

ESTOPPEL – promissory estoppel – plaintiff renovates country property pursuant to an oral contract – acts allegedly done on the faith of promises made to him or on the faith of an expectation created in him by his partner that he would have the right to occupy the property during their joint lifetimes and that the plaintiff would then have the right to occupy the property after her death - plaintiff expends money on the renovation – whether the deceased intended the plaintiff to rely on the promises allegedly made or the expectation allegedly created – whether the plaintiff relied upon the promises or expectation alleged – whether it would be unconscionable for the partner’s executrix now not to fulfil the promises or the expectation alleged – whether renovation works were done on the Coraki property – whether the sister is bound by the promises made such that relief may be granted against her as well as against the estate – what form of relief, if any, should be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
ESTATE ADMINISTRATION – defendant/cross-claimant alleges that the plaintiff/cross-defendant has retained a Mercedes Benz motor vehicle and certain jewellery and personal…

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 Stenlake v Whipps

Details

AGLC: Stenlake v Whipps [2016] NSWSC 719
Case: [2016] NSWSC 719
Decision Date: 06 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stenlake brought an action against Whipps, the executrix of the estate of his deceased domestic partner, alleging an oral agreement that entitled him to occupy a property at Coraki in northern NSW during his partner's lifetime and thereafter as sole occupant after her death. Stenlake claimed that he had expended money on renovating the property based on these promises. After the partner's death, Whipps, as executrix, and the partner's sister, who co-owned the property, refused Stenlake access to the property. Stenlake sought a declaration that Whipps had repudiated the agreement and claimed damages for the repudiation, if any. Stenlake also sought relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel and raised cross-claims against Whipps and the sister for the return of certain personal property of the deceased that he had retained.

The court needed to determine whether the executrix had repudiated the alleged agreement and, if so, what damages the plaintiff had suffered as a result. The court also had to consider whether promissory estoppel applied, requiring the executrix not to go back on the promises made to Stenlake or the expectation created in him. The court had to ascertain whether the deceased intended for Stenlake to rely on the promises, whether Stenlake relied on them, and whether it would be unconscionable for the executrix to not fulfil the promises. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the sister was bound by the promises and, if so, what form of relief should be granted against her and the estate.

The court found that Whipps had repudiated the agreement by refusing Stenlake access to the property. It held that Stenlake was entitled to rely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and granted him a declaration that he had the right to occupy the Coraki property during his lifetime and thereafter as sole occupant. The court ordered Whipps and the sister to permit Stenlake to occupy the property and awarded him damages for loss of enjoyment of the property during the period of exclusion. Regarding the cross-claims, the court found that Stenlake had retained certain personal property of the deceased and ordered him to return it to the estate.

The court's final orders included a declaration that Stenlake had the right to occupy the Coraki property during his lifetime and thereafter as sole occupant, an order that Whipps and the sister permit Stenlake to occupy the property, damages for loss of enjoyment of the property, and an order for the return of certain personal property of the deceased from Stenlake to the estate.

Orders