WITHAM -v- WITHAM [2000] WASC 236
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 236 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1474/1998 | 5-7 JUNE 2000 | |
| Coram: | OWEN J | 25/09/00 | |
| 53 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Plaintiff and defendant each successful in part | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BETTY FRANCES WITHAM TANYA LIZA WITHAM |
Catchwords: | Estoppel Promissory estoppel Arrangements between proprietor and a relative concerning farming land Representation by proprietor that relative could have possession until land sold Representation by proprietor giving relative right of pre-emption at reduced price General principles of promissory estoppel Representations must be clear and unambiguous Contract between contract law and estoppel in certainty of terms What constitutes detrimental reliance Estoppel on occupancy right No estoppel on pre-emption Equity Equitable estates and interests Right of pre-emption Different to option to purchase Right of pre-emption confers no interest in land Whether grantee has equitable interest in land after right of pre-emption triggered Depends on terms of bargain |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582 Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 510 China-Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India [1981] 1 QB 403 Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641 Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406 Muschinski v Dodds (1986) 160 CLR 583 Pata Nominees Pty Ltd v Durnsford Pty Ltd [1988] WAR 365 Pritchard v Briggs [1980] Ch 338 Re Burton (Deceased) [1958] QWN 27 The Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507 Transfield Properties (Kent Street) Pty Ltd v Amos Aked Swift Pty Ltd (1994) 36 NSWLR 321 Vasiljev v Public Trustee [1974] 2 NSWLR 497 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1998) 164 CLR 387 Western Australian Insurance Co Ltd v Dayton (1924) 35 CLR 355 Woodhouse AC Israel Cocoa Ltd SA v Nigerian Produce Marketing Co Ltd [1971] 2 QB 23 Woodroffe v Box (1954) 92 CLR 245 Bank Negara Indonesia v Hoalim [1973] 2 MLJ 3 Brikom Investments Ltd v Carr [1979] 1 QB 467 Canas Property Co Ltd v KL Television Services Pty Ltd [1970] 2 QB 433 Combe v Combe [1951] 2 KB 215 Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] 1 Ch 179 Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 305 Dixon v Kennaway & Co [1900] 1 Ch 833 Donaldson v Freeson (1934) 51 CLR 598 Drexel Burnham Lambert International NV v El Nasr & Anor [1986] 1 Lloyd's Rep 356 Foran v Wight (1989) 168 CLR 385 Freeman v Cooke (1848) 154 EWR 652 Fung Kai Sun v Chan Fui Hing [1951] AC 489 Goldsworthy v Brickell [1987] 1 Ch 378 Gollin & Co Ltd v Consolidated Fertilizer Sales Pty Ltd [1982] QD R 435 Greasley v Cooke (1980) 1 WLR 1306 Greenwood v Martin's Bank Limited [1933] AC 51 Griffiths v Williams (1978) 248 EG 947 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty… |
Continue reading Witham v Witham
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Witham v Witham [2000] WASC 236
- Case
- [2000] WASC 236
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Witham v Witham, the parties involved were the plaintiff and defendant, both related individuals with a dispute concerning farming land. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had made certain representations regarding the possession of the land and a right of pre-emption at a reduced price. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to enforce the alleged representations made by the defendant through promissory estoppel and other equitable principles.
The court was required to determine whether the representations made by the defendant were clear and unambiguous, and if the plaintiff had relied on these representations to their detriment. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the right of pre-emption granted to the plaintiff constituted an equitable interest in the land, separate from the option to purchase. The court also needed to decide if the right of pre-emption was different from an option to purchase and if it conferred any interest in the land.
The court found that the representations made by the defendant were not clear and unambiguous enough to constitute promissory estoppel. Consequently, the court did not find the plaintiff's reliance on these representations to be detrimental enough to enforce the estoppel. Regarding the right of pre-emption, the court held that it did not confer any interest in the land, and thus, the plaintiff did not have an equitable interest in the land after the right of pre-emption was triggered. However, the court did find that the defendant's representations regarding the occupancy of the land could be enforced through estoppel.
The court ordered that the plaintiff was successful in enforcing the representations concerning the occupancy of the land through estoppel, while the defendant was successful in asserting that the right of pre-emption did not confer any equitable interest in the land. The court did not provide any further orders beyond these findings.
The court was required to determine whether the representations made by the defendant were clear and unambiguous, and if the plaintiff had relied on these representations to their detriment. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the right of pre-emption granted to the plaintiff constituted an equitable interest in the land, separate from the option to purchase. The court also needed to decide if the right of pre-emption was different from an option to purchase and if it conferred any interest in the land.
The court found that the representations made by the defendant were not clear and unambiguous enough to constitute promissory estoppel. Consequently, the court did not find the plaintiff's reliance on these representations to be detrimental enough to enforce the estoppel. Regarding the right of pre-emption, the court held that it did not confer any interest in the land, and thus, the plaintiff did not have an equitable interest in the land after the right of pre-emption was triggered. However, the court did find that the defendant's representations regarding the occupancy of the land could be enforced through estoppel.
The court ordered that the plaintiff was successful in enforcing the representations concerning the occupancy of the land through estoppel, while the defendant was successful in asserting that the right of pre-emption did not confer any equitable interest in the land. The court did not provide any further orders beyond these findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Plaintiff and defendant each successful in part
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.