Legal Research
Cases
Wise v Wise

Wise v Wise

Case [2024] WASC 217 17 June 2024

Equitable Estoppel

Proprietary Estoppel

Expectation of Inheritance

Family Law

Trusts & Equity

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   WISE -v- WISE [2024] WASC 217
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   8 - 12 & 15 - 18 APRIL 2024
DELIVERED          :   17 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3024 of 2018
BETWEEN:   STEPHEN LESLIE WISE
First Plaintiff
KATHY WISE
Second Plaintiff
AND
KEILO JANE WISE as executrix of the estate of AUDREY VERA WISE
First Defendant
KEILO JANE WISE as beneficiary of the estate of AUDREY VERA WISE
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Equity and trusts - Estoppel - Proprietary estoppel - Farming family - Proprietary estoppel by encouragement - Whether deceased mother made a promise to plaintiffs - Expectation of inheritance - Detrimental reliance

Legislation:

Family Provision Act 1972 (WA)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Result:

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	J F Park & S D Tribble
Second Plaintiff	:	J F Park & S D Tribble
First Defendant	:	L A Tsaknis
Second Defendant	:	L A Tsaknis

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Dentons Australia
Second Plaintiff	:	Dentons Australia
First Defendant	:	Cullen Macleod Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Cullen Macleod Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Awad v Awad [2019] NSWSC 385
Bedshed Franchising Pty Ltd v Battersby [No 2] [2015] WASC 281
Browne v Browne [No 2] [2017] WASC 375
Currie v Currie [No 2] [2017] WASC 312
Dillwyn v Llewelyn [1862] 45 ER 1285
Equititrust Ltd v Francis [2009] NSWCA 128; (2009) 258 ALR 388
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10; (1999) 196 CLR 101
Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363
Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 369
Priestley v Priestley [2017] NSWCA 155, 22
Ramsden v Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129
Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19; (2014) 251 CLR 505
Wantagong Farms Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Bulle Family Trust v Bulle [2015] NSWSC 1603
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Webb v GetSwift Ltd (No 5) [2019] FCA 1533
Webb v Ryan [2012] VSC 377

WHITBY J:

Leslie and Audrey Wise had two children - Stephen Leslie Wise and Keilo Jane Wise. Leslie and Audrey jointly owned a farm 45 km north of Albany at 141 Takenup Road, Napier (the farm). Leslie and Audrey are both deceased. As was done throughout the trial, I will refer to individuals by their first names. No disrespect is intended by doing so.
These proceedings concern the inheritance of the farm. Leslie and Audrey's accountant, Sandra Knight, sent Stephen and Keilo a letter in 2009 setting out options and concerns in relation to the inheritance of the farm. Sandra Knight ended that letter with the following words '[w]ill a good memory turn into a nightmare & debt when…

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 Wise v Wise

Details

AGLC: Wise v Wise [2024] WASC 217
Case: [2024] WASC 217
Decision Date: 17 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wise v Wise involved a dispute among members of a farming family over an expectation of inheritance. The plaintiffs, the children of the deceased, brought an action against the other children, alleging that their mother had made a promise to them that they would inherit her farm. The plaintiffs argued that this promise constituted proprietary estoppel by encouragement, leading them to rely on the expectation of inheritance to their detriment. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the deceased mother had indeed made a promise to the plaintiffs that they would inherit the farm, and if so, whether this promise constituted proprietary estoppel by encouragement. The court had to determine if the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on this expectation to their detriment, which would entitle them to a proprietary estoppel claim. The court also needed to assess the nature and extent of the detriment suffered by the plaintiffs and whether it was sufficient to support a proprietary estoppel claim.

The court found that the deceased mother had made assurances to the plaintiffs that they would inherit the farm, but these assurances did not amount to a clear and unequivocal promise. The court held that while the plaintiffs had relied on these assurances, the reliance was not sufficiently detrimental to warrant a proprietary estoppel claim. The plaintiffs had not suffered a significant detriment that would entitle them to a proprietary estoppel claim, and thus, the court dismissed their claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs take nothing by their action, and the defendants were awarded their costs.

Orders