Trentelman v The Owners - Strata Plan 76700 (No 3); The Owners - Strata Plan 76700 v Trentelman (No 3)

The case before the court involved two parties, Trentelman and The Owners - Strata Plan 76700, who were engaged in a dispute over alleged promises regarding future access to property and rectification of an instrument. The matter was heard in an unspecified Australian court, where the central issues revolved around the allocation of costs between the parties. The plaintiff, Trentelman, initiated proceedings seeking to enforce alleged promises about future access to property, but did not fully articulate a claim for proprietary estoppel until after the defendant obtained an adjournment. Despite this, Trentelman ultimately succeeded on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The defendant, The Owners - Strata Plan 76700, cross-claimed for rectification of an instrument, while Trentelman sought to rectify the same instrument by removing a specific notation. Both claims and the cross-claim were dismissed.

The legal issues before the court included whether Trentelman was entitled to costs for the adjournment obtained by The Owners - Strata Plan 76700, and how to allocate costs between the parties given the unsuccessful claims and cross-claim. The court considered the principles of proprietary estoppel and the effect of the adjournment on the proceedings. It also assessed the application of the Smith v Madden precedent to determine the costs implications of the unsuccessful claims and cross-claim.

In its decision, the court ordered Trentelman to pay the costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment, as the plaintiff had not fully articulated the proprietary estoppel claim before the adjournment was obtained. However, The Owners - Strata Plan 76700 was ordered to pay Trentelman’s general costs of the proceedings, reflecting the success on the proprietary estoppel claim. Regarding the rectification claims, the court dismissed both the plaintiff’s claim and the defendant’s cross-claim, and ordered Trentelman to pay The Owners - Strata Plan 76700’s costs apart from those solely referable to bringing the cross-claim. Conversely, The Owners - Strata Plan 76700 was ordered to pay Trentelman’s costs solely referable to the defence of the cross-claim. This allocation was in line with the principles established in Smith v Madden.