Stojanovski v Stoyanovski [2024] NSWSC 1582

Stojanovski v Stoyanovski [2024] NSWSC 1582

While the Court accepted the existence of certain representations and some reliance by the plaintiffs, it found that the substantial countervailing benefits received by the plaintiffs—including rent-free accommodation for over 20 years, paid caretaking income, and proprietary interests in other properties—meant that no real or substantial detriment was suffered. Accordingly, the case for proprietary estoppel was not made out, and it was not unconscionable for the defendant (or his estate) to refuse to transfer the Illawong Property.

Parties
First Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant: Dimce Stojanovski; Second Plaintiff / Second Cross Defendant: Valentina Tusevska-Stojanovski; Defendant / Cross Claimant: Rade Stoyanovski
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Post Trial Judgment; Orders Following Hearing of Claim and Cross Claim
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; directions given for further orders on cross-claim.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement, Family Arrangements, Residential Property, Testamentary Promise, Reliance, Detriment, Countervailing Benefits, Succession, NCAT Issue Estoppel
Equity Estoppel Property Law Proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement Family Arrangements Residential Property Testamentary Promise Reliance +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 49 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dimce Stojanovski

First Plaintiff / First Cross Defendant

Valentina Tusevska-Stojanovski

Second Plaintiff / Second Cross Defendant

Rade Stoyanovski

Defendant / Cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Post Trial Judgment; Orders Following Hearing of Claim and Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel by encouragement applies to representations made by defendant and his wife to the plaintiffs concerning the Illawong Property
  2. 2 Whether the representations went beyond cultural expectations and amounted to enforceable promises
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs relied on the representations to their detriment

Ratio Decidendi

While the Court accepted the existence of certain representations and some reliance by the plaintiffs, it found that the substantial countervailing benefits received by the plaintiffs—including rent-free accommodation for over 20 years, paid caretaking income, and proprietary interests in other properties—meant that no real or substantial detriment was suffered. Accordingly, the case for proprietary estoppel was not made out, and it was not unconscionable for the defendant (or his estate) to refuse to transfer the Illawong Property.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; directions given for further orders on cross-claim.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' statement of claim dismissed.
  • Parties to confer and bring in short minutes of order giving effect to judgment on cross-claim by 4pm on 3 February 2025.