Tremain-Cannon v Tremain [2020] NSWSC 646

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Tremain-Cannon v Tremain [2020] NSWSC 646 Hearing dates: 9-13 December 2019 Date of orders: 02 June 2020 Decision date: 02 June 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendants. (2) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs. Catchwords: CONTRACTS – where son of defendants alleges the existence of an agreement that he would be given a one-third interest in agricultural lands owned by his parents and a similar interest in the partnership conducted from the land – where son alleges terms of the agreement to be that these benefits would be given to him if he gave up a career in Newcastle and returned and remained to assist his parents by working on the farm at Peak Hill following the death of his brother – whether promises were made at all – whether terms of the alleged agreement were clear and unambiguous – whether terms sufficiently certain to constitute an enforceable agreement – whether agreement alleged made in fact

ESTOPPEL – promissory and proprietary estoppel – where son alleges that he gave up a promising career in Newcastle and returned to the family farm – whether son remained working on the farm for little or inadequate remuneration in reliance upon representations or assurances from his parents that if he did so he would be given a one-third interest in agricultural lands owned by his parents and a similar interest in the partnership conducted from the land – whether representations or assurances made as alleged – whether son altered his position to his detriment in reliance upon the representations or assurances – whether defendants resiled from the position consistent with the making of the alleged representations or assurances – whether it would be unconscionable for the defendants not to fulfil the son's expectations by acting in accordance with the alleged representations or assurances Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) Cases Cited: Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 582 Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd v Beck [2016] NSWCA 218 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; [1990] HCA 39 Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Doueihi (2014) 17 BPR 33,457; [2014] NSWSC 1717 Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 26 Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483 Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 247 Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Galaxidis v Galaxidis [2004] NSWCA 111 Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101; [1999] HCA 10 John Holland Pty Ltd v Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 451 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8 LCY Pty Ltd v Ma [2017] VSCA 383 Lukaszewicz v Polish Club Limited [2019] NSWSC 446 Macquarie Developments Pty Ltd v Forrester [2005] NSWSC 674 Miller Heiman Pty Ltd v Sales Principles Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 106 Palagiano v Mankarios [2011] NSWSC 61 Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; [2014] HCA 19 Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro (1988) 13 NSWLR 466 Sion v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 949 Sledmore v Dalby [1996] EWCA Civ 1305; 72 P & CR 196F Waaka v Francois [2017] NSWSC 744 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Zagame v Zagame [2014] NSWSC 1302 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Blake Tremain-Cannon (Plaintiff) Leanne Margaret Tremain (First Defendant) Ray Owen Cannon (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: H K Insall SC with R M O'Brien (Plaintiff) S Balafoutis SC with D Stretton (First Defendant)