Van Dyke v Sidhu

In *Van Dyke v Sidhu*, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the striking out of their statement of claim by a judge of the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant's claim, which alleged promissory estoppel and unconscionable conduct, was struck out at first instance without any evidence being read to the court.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in striking out the statement of claim without considering the material before the court. The applicant contended that the primary judge should have allowed the matter to proceed to a full hearing, particularly given that the existence of a law preventing the transfer of property or the interest of another party does not necessarily preclude a claim for equitable compensation.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Bathurst CJ, Hodgson and Young JJA, found that the primary judge had not properly considered the material before them. They held that it is not an absolute bar to a claim that there may be legal impediments to the transfer of property or that another party holds an interest, as equitable compensation may be available. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Equity Division for trial by a different judge. The orders of the primary judge were set aside, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.