Stephen Sandri v Paul Robert O'Driscoll

[2014] HCASL 184

STEPHEN SANDRI

v

PAUL ROBERT O'DRISCOLL & ANOR

[2014] HCASL 184
M45/2014

1. In 1959 Francis Dean Humphries and Aileen Elizabeth Humphries ("the Humphries") bought a house in Williamstown.  The Humphries had four children:  two sons and two daughters.  Their older daughter married the applicant; their younger daughter is the second respondent  (and wife of the first respondent).

2. Between 1999 and 2002 the Humphries and the applicant and his wife ("the Sandris") talked about the Sandris moving into the Williamstown property with their children and looking after the Humphries.  Whether and to what extent these discussions resulted in a settled proposal or agreement has been disputed. 

3. In March 2002 the Humphries and the Sandris made a written contract for the sale by the Humphries to the Sandris of a half interest in the property for $240,000.

4. The Humphries and the applicant's wife have died.  Mrs Humphries predeceased her husband.

5. The applicant brought proceedings in the County Court of Victoria seeking a declaration that the first respondent (as personal representative of the estate of Mr Humphries) holds his interest in the property as constructive trustee for the applicant.

6. The applicant also sought a declaration that the second respondent is estopped from enforcing any terms of a contract by which Mr Humphries assigned his interest in the property to her.

7. Resolution of the issues between the parties depended upon the application of well‑established principles to the particular facts of the case.

8. At trial, Judge Ginnane dismissed the applicant's claims.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.  That Court (Maxwell P, Neave JA and McMillan AJA) dismissed the appeal.

9. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. Because he is unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

10. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal.  An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

11. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
15 October 2014 S.M. Crennan