Q (a pseudonym) v E Co (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWCA 220

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Q (a pseudonym) v E Co (a pseudonym) [2020] NSWCA 220 Hearing dates: 25, 26 and 27 March 2020 Decision date: 21 September 2020 Before: Meagher JA at [1]; Leeming JA at [207]; Payne JA at [208] Decision: 1. Direct that the parties attempt to agree within 14 days short minutes of order giving effect to these reasons. 2. Direct that failing such agreement, the parties exchange written submissions supporting the orders contended for and remaining in issue. Those written submissions, not to exceed 5 pages, to be exchanged and filed with the Court within a further 14 days. In the absence of any further direction, the final orders to be made will then be determined on the papers. Catchwords: ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Encouragement – Where claim of encouragement not based on specific words – Where primary judge emphasised defendant's knowledge of plaintiffs' expectation – Whether estoppel as found properly characterised as estoppel by encouragement or acquiescence ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Nature of promise – Where relief encompassed property acquired after encouragement and initial reliance – Where detrimental reliance by plaintiffs continuing – Whether necessary for all property the subject of relief to have been identified and owned by defendant at the time of encouragement and initial reliance ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Detrimental reliance – Where plaintiffs found to have made "life-changing" decisions – Whether error in giving significant weight to plaintiff's "hypothetical" evidence of counterfactual behaviour in making finding of reliance – Whether "countervailing benefits" received by plaintiffs by reason of reliance relevant to assessment of detriment – Whether plaintiffs would suffer substantial detriment if expectation departed from ESTOPPEL – Proprietary estoppel – Relief – Where relief involved "acceleration" of the encouraged expectation – Where constructive trust declared by primary judge – Whether to impose conditions on relief – Whether conditions necessary to "do equity" – Whether condition for payment of rent "conceptually inconsistent" with recognition of constructive trust Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 51.17(1), 51.40(1) Cases Cited: Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1984] QB 84 Ashton v Pratt (2015) 88 NSWLR 281; [2015] NSWCA 12 Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hill Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560; [2014] HCA 14 Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 269; [2009] HCA 44 Browne v Browne [2019] WASCA 1 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304; [2009] HCA 25 Commonwealth of Australia v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394; [1990] HCA 39 Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179 Crown Melbourne Ltd v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 1; [2016] HCA 26 Dann v Spurrier (1802) 7 Ves Jun 231; 32 ER 94 Delaforce v Simpson-Cook (2010) 78 NSWLR 483; [2010] NSWCA 84 DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd (2011) 83 NSWLR 728; [2011] NSWCA 348 Donis v Donis (2007) 19 VR 577; [2007] VSCA 89 Doueihi v Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd (2016) 92 NSWLR 247; [2016] NSWCA 105 Earl of Egmont v Smith (1877) 6 Ch D 469 Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92 Fifteenth Eestin Nominees Pty Ltd v Rosenberg (2009) 24 VR 115; [2009] VSCA 112 Flinn v Flinn [1999] 3 VR 712; [1999] VSCA 109 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 Gould v Vaggelas (1984) 157 CLR 215; [1985] HCA 75 Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd (1939) 59 CLR 641; [1937] HCA 58 Hamilton v Geraghty (1901) 1 SR (NSW) Eq 81 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1939] HCA 40 Langman v Handover (1929) 43 CLR 334; [1929] HCA 42 MCI [2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 833 NSW Trotting Club Ltd v Council of the Municipality of Glebe (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 288 Plimmer v Mayor, &c., of Wellington (1884) 9 App Cas 699 Priestley v Priestley [2017] NSWCA 155 Riches v Hogben [1985] 2 Qd R 292 Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014) 251 CLR 505; [2014] HCA 9 Smith v Chadwick (1884) 9 App Cas 187 Steria Ltd v Hutchison [2006] EWCA Civ 1551 Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312 Tanwar Enterprises Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 217 CLR 315; [2003] HCA 57 Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776; [2009] UKHL 18 Waddell v Waddell [2012] NSWCA 214 Walsh v Walsh [2012] NSWCA 57 Walton v Walton (unreported, EWCA, Hoffman LJ, 14 April 1994) Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387; [1988] HCA 7 Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] 1 WLR 1752; [2008] UKHL 55 Texts Cited: Handley, Estoppel by Conduct and Election (2nd ed, Thomson Reuters, 2016) Heydon and Leeming, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2016) Heydon, Leeming and Turner, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (LexisNexis Butterworths, 5th ed, 2015) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Q (a pseudonym) (Appellant) E Co (a pseudonym) (First Respondent) EM Co (a pseudonym) (Second Respondent) A (a pseudonym) (Third Respondent) B (a pseudonym) (Fourth Respondent) C (a pseudonym) (Fifth Respondent) Representation: Counsel: N Hutley SC with B Lloyd and T Rogan (Appellant) A McInerney SC with N Kabilafkas (Respondents)