Van Dyke v Sidhu [2013] NSWCA 198

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Van Dyke v Sidhu [2013] NSWCA 198 Hearing dates: 1 March 2013 Decision date: 01 July 2013 Before: Basten JA (at [1]); Barrett JA (at [2]); Tobias AJA (at [148]) Decision: 1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the orders made in the Equity Division on 23 February 2012. 3. Order in lieu thereof as follows: (a) That the defendant pay to the plaintiff by way of equitable compensation a sum to be determined in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal. (b) That the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. 4. Remit the matter to the Equity Division for determination of the quantum of equitable compensation in accordance with the decision of this Court on the basis of further submissions and, if the court so determines, additional evidence. 5. Order that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. 6. Order that the respondent have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 if qualified. [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 - proprietary estoppel - promises by a man to a woman to give her a cottage property - where that property not separately transferable unless a plan of subdivision approved and registered - where the property is owned by the man and his wife as joint tenants - implications for proprietary estoppel claim of these preconditions to transferability - whether promisee acted to her detriment in reliance on the promises - inconclusive answers by her in cross examination to questions as to what she would have done if the promises had not been made - relevance of such answers to presumption of reliance - whether it was unconscionable for the man to resile from the promises - form of relief where third party interest subsists in promised property - equitable compensation to be rendered Cases Cited: Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84 Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990; (2001) 82 P & CR D43 Clarke v Meadus [2010] EWHC 3117 (Ch) Delaforce v Simpson-Cook [2010] NSWCA 84; (2010) 78 NSWLR 483 DHJPM Pty Ltd v Blackthorn Resources Ltd [2011] NSWCA 348; (2011) 285 ALR 311 Duic v Duic [2013] NSWCA 42 Evans v Evans [2011] NSWCA 92 Flinn v Flinn [1999] VSCA 109; (1999) 3 VR 712 Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 Giumelli v Giumelli [1999] HCA 10; (1999) 196 CLR 101 Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 63 Harrison v Harrison [2013] VSCA 170 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) 160 CLR 583 Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 274; (2010) 79 NSWLR 453 Sullivan v Sullivan [2006] NSWCA 312; (2006) 13 BPR 24,755 Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi [2003] HCA 57; (2003) 217 CLR 315 The Public Trustee v Kukula (1990) 14 Fam LR 97 Van Dyke v Sidhu [2012] NSWSC 118 Vukic v Luca Grbin; Estate of Zvonko Grbin [2006] NSWSC 41 Waddell v Waddell [2012] NSWCA 214; (2012) 292 ALR 788 Walsh v Walsh [2012] NSWCA 57 Waltons Stores (Interstate) Pty Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7; (1988) 164 CLR 387 Wayling v Jones (1993) 69 P & CR 170 Texts Cited: K R Handley, Estoppel by Conduct and Election, (2006) Sweet and Maxwell Michael Spence, Protecting Reliance: The Emergent Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel, (1999) Hart Publishing Category: Principal judgment Parties: Lauren Marie Van Dyke - Appellant Ptrithvi Pal Singh Sidhu – Respondent Representation: Self-represented - Appellant Mr J C Giles - Respondent Self-represented - Appellant Henry Davis York Lawyers - Respondent File Number(s): 2012/88758 Decision under appeal Citation: Van Dyke v Sidhu [2012] NSWSC 118 Date of Decision: 2012-02-23 00:00:00 Before: Ward J File Number(s): 2009/289460