Sullivan v Sullivan

The case of *Sullivan v Sullivan* involved a dispute between the appellant, who claimed a right to occupy a property for life, and the respondents, who sought to sell the property. The appellant's claim was based on an equitable estoppel arising from representations made to her, which she alleged induced her to give up her Housing Commission accommodation and move into the property in question. The primary judge had considered the appellant's claim, and the appeal concerned the extent to which the court could grant relief based on proprietary estoppel.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the representations made to the appellant were sufficiently certain to found an estoppel, whether the appellant had suffered sufficient detriment in reliance on those representations, and if an estoppel was made out, what relief was appropriate. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant's act of relinquishing her Housing Commission accommodation constituted a detriment, given the lack of evidence regarding the rent paid and the security of her tenure in that accommodation. The court also considered whether the third respondent, who purchased the property, was bound by any equity established between the appellant and the first two respondents.

The appellate court, in considering the appeal, found that the appellant had not sufficiently established detriment in relation to giving up her Housing Commission housing, as there was no evidence of the rent paid or the security of her tenure. However, the court acknowledged the appellant's reliance on the representations and the unconscionability of the respondents departing from them. The court reasoned that to do justice, the appellant should be permitted to remain in the house for a further period of seven years, subject to paying a weekly rent of $65.00 with CPI adjustments and maintaining the property. This period was intended to provide her with reasonable time to seek alternative accommodation.

The court also ordered that protection be afforded against any potential purchaser of the property, either through a restraint on disposition or by expressing the relief as a constructive trust, allowing for the lodging of a caveat. The court directed the parties to bring in proposed Short Minutes of Order, including submissions on costs, to facilitate the finalisation of the appeal.