Court of Appeal
New South Wales
Case Title: Waddell v Waddell Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 214 Hearing Date(s): 27 June 2012 Decision Date: 19 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Before: Allsop P at [1]
Campbell JA at [2]
Sackville AJA at [72]Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The Appellant to pay the costs of the Respondent and in that regard to have an indemnity out of the estate of the deceased.
3. The Appellant's costs on the indemnity basis be paid out of the estate of the deceased.
4. The Respondent's share of residue should not bear any part of the estate's liability in respect of the Respondent's costs.[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: ESTOPPEL - equitable estoppel - creation or encouragement of assumption - respondent left school at age of 15 to work in father's orchard business - business conducted partly on land owned by respondent's grandfather - representation made by grandfather that his land would pass to respondent, but would first pass to the respondent's father so property could be worked as a whole - respondent continued to work in business after grandfather's death - representation that will had been made leaving land to respondent, or that respondent would inherit the land confirmed by father over a course of years to numerous persons in family and community who interacted regularly with respondent - respondent continued to work on farm - evidence given that this deliberate choice of a hard career was at least in part motivated by his assumption of the specific devise - the father's will was at a much later date changed so as to no longer specifically devise portion of property to respondent - action in estoppel brought against estate after death of father to enforce reliance on representations made during lifetime - representations and reliance established and estate estopped - appeal against decision below dismissed
ESTOPPEL - equitable estoppel - detriment - establishing detriment does not require the person relying on the representation to establish that he or she is "worse off" as a result of that reliance - the relevant detriment is that which is brought about by the failure to fulfil a representation where the person has made a choice that would not have been made had it not been for the representation
ESTOPPEL - equitable estoppel - representations - no error in finding representation was conditional on continuance of circumstances that representor and representee both knew of
ESTOPPEL - equitable estoppel - representations - evidence that testamentary intention was not seen as a proper subject of discussion between father and respondent - deceased made much more direct representations…
Continue reading Waddell v Waddell
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Waddell v Waddell [2012] NSWCA 214
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 214
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had established the elements of equitable estoppel, specifically the creation or encouragement of an assumption by the deceased, the respondent's reliance on that assumption, and the detriment suffered as a result of the failure to fulfil the representation. The court also considered the nature of the detriment required to establish an estoppel and the validity of representations made indirectly or obliquely, particularly concerning testamentary intentions.
The court affirmed the principles of equitable estoppel, finding that the respondent had established the necessary elements. The court reasoned that the father's repeated assurances to third parties, coupled with his awareness that the respondent knew of these assurances and did nothing to dissuade him, constituted sufficient representation. The court clarified that establishing detriment does not require the representee to be "worse off" in an absolute sense, but rather that they have made a choice they would not have made had the representation not been made. The court found no error in the trial judge's determination that the representations were conditional on circumstances known to both parties and that the indirect assurances were sufficient to found an estoppel.
The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent on an indemnity basis, to be paid out of the estate of the deceased, with the respondent's share of the residue not bearing any part of the estate's liability for these costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The Appellant to pay the costs of the Respondent and in that regard to have an indemnity out of the estate of the deceased.
3. The Appellant's costs on the indemnity basis be paid out of the estate of the deceased.
4. The Respondent's share of residue should not bear any part of the estate's liability in respect of the Respondent's costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.