Legal Research
Cases
Tremain-Cannon v Tremain

Tremain-Cannon v Tremain

Case [2020] NSWSC 646 2 June 2020

Contract Formation

Implied Terms

Unconscionable Conduct

Promissory Estoppel

Proprietary Estoppel

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tremain-Cannon v Tremain [2020] NSWSC 646
Hearing dates: 9-13 December 2019
Date of orders: 02 June 2020
Decision date: 02 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the defendants.
(2) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS – where son of defendants alleges the existence of an agreement that he would be given a one-third interest in agricultural lands owned by his parents and a similar interest in the partnership conducted from the land – where son alleges terms of the agreement to be that these benefits would be given to him if he gave up a career in Newcastle and returned and remained to assist his parents by working on the farm at Peak Hill following the death of his brother – whether promises were made at all – whether terms of the alleged agreement were clear and unambiguous – whether terms sufficiently certain to constitute an enforceable agreement – whether agreement alleged made in fact
ESTOPPEL – promissory and proprietary estoppel – where son alleges that he gave up a promising career in Newcastle and returned to the family farm – whether son remained working on the farm for little or inadequate remuneration in reliance upon representations or assurances from his parents that if he did so he would be given a one-third interest in agricultural lands owned by his parents and a similar interest in the partnership conducted from the land – whether representations or assurances made as alleged – whether son altered his position to his detriment in reliance upon the representations or assurances – whether defendants resiled from the position consistent with the making of the alleged representations or assurances – whether it would be unconscionable for the defendants not to fulfil the son’s expectations by acting in accordance with the alleged representations or assurances
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582
Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd v Beck [2016] NSWCA 218
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; [1990] HCA 39
Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi (2014) 17 BPR 33,457; [2014] NSWSC 1717
Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 26
Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483
Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 247
Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Galaxidis v Galaxidis [2004] NSWCA 111
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; [1999] HCA 10
John Holland Pty Ltd v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 451
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
LCY Pty Ltd v Ma [2017] VSCA 383
Lukaszewicz v Polish Club Limited [2019] NSWSC 446
Macquarie Developments Pty Ltd v Forrester [2005] NSWSC 674
Miller…

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 Tremain-Cannon v Tremain

Details

AGLC: Tremain-Cannon v Tremain [2020] NSWSC 646
Case: [2020] NSWSC 646
Decision Date: 02 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Tremain-Cannon, brought a case against the defendants, his parents, asserting that they had promised him a one-third interest in both the agricultural lands owned by his parents and the partnership operated from the land. The plaintiff alleged that these promises were made on the condition that he gave up a career in Newcastle and returned to work on the family farm at Peak Hill following the death of his brother. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought to enforce the alleged agreement or, alternatively, to enforce the agreement through promissory and proprietary estoppel.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's allegations about the agreement were accurate, including whether the terms of the alleged agreement were clear and unambiguous. The court also had to determine whether the terms were sufficiently certain to constitute an enforceable agreement and whether the agreement was made in fact. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the plaintiff had altered his position to his detriment in reliance on the alleged representations or assurances, and whether it would be unconscionable for the defendants to renege on the alleged promises.

In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff had not established that an enforceable agreement had been made. The court concluded that the terms of the alleged agreement were not clear and unambiguous, nor were they sufficiently certain to constitute an enforceable contract. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had altered his position to his detriment in reliance upon the alleged representations or assurances. The court also found that it would not be unconscionable for the defendants to resiled from the position consistent with the making of the alleged representations or assurances. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court did not make any orders as the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Orders