Henderson v Miles (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 867

Henderson v Miles (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 867

In cases of windfall equity arising from a family arrangement which has broken down without attributable blame, the minimum equity to be granted is one that prevents the defendants from unconscionably retaining a benefit (here, the increased value of land due to the plaintiff's dwelling). The remedy should not be based on the plaintiff's lost expectation or accommodation, but on the benefit conferred upon the defendants, discounted for the plaintiff's life estate and contingencies. Accordingly, a charge of $32,000 (reflecting the increased value as adjusted) is the proper relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment Application Regarding Calculation of Charge
Outcome
Charge for $32,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff; plaintiff to pay costs of current application; further final orders and costs questions reserved.
Legal Topics
['windfall Equity' 'equitable Remedies' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'detriment/reliance' 'unconscionable Retention' 'remedies and Relief']
['equity'] ['windfall Equity' 'equitable Remedies' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'detriment/reliance' 'unconscionable Retention' 'remedies and Relief']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Post Judgment Application Regarding Calculation of Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an equitable charge for the improvement of the defendants' land due to the plaintiff's contribution" "How to calculate the appropriate amount of the equitable charge in a 'windfall equity' scenario" "Distinction between proprietary estoppel and 'windfall equity' cases in determining remedies"]

Ratio Decidendi

In cases of windfall equity arising from a family arrangement which has broken down without attributable blame, the minimum equity to be granted is one that prevents the defendants from unconscionably retaining a benefit (here, the increased value of land due to the plaintiff's dwelling). The remedy should not be based on the plaintiff's lost expectation or accommodation, but on the benefit conferred upon the defendants, discounted for the plaintiff's life estate and contingencies. Accordingly, a charge of $32,000 (reflecting the increased value as adjusted) is the proper relief.

Court Disposition

Charge for $32,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff; plaintiff to pay costs of current application; further final orders and costs questions reserved.

Orders

  • ["Charge of $32,000 granted in favour of plaintiff against defendants' property." 'Plaintiff to pay costs of application to reopen method of calculation.' 'Short minutes of orders to be prepared and brought in for settling.']