Tremain-Cannon v Tremain [2020] NSWSC 646

Tremain-Cannon v Tremain [2020] NSWSC 646

The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that any binding or enforceable agreement existed for the transfer of a one-third interest in the partnership or lands, or that the assurances or promises alleged were sufficiently clear or certain to ground proprietary or promissory estoppel. The Court found the plaintiff did not act to his detriment in reliance on any such promise or assurance, and that, even if there was such reliance, it would not have been reasonable. The evidence did not support unconscionability in allowing the defendants to refuse to transfer the proposed interests to the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: Blake Tremain-Cannon; First Defendant: Leanne Margaret Tremain; Second Defendant: Ray Owen Cannon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Promissory Estoppel, Family Farm Succession, Formation and Enforceability of Contracts, Unconscionability
Contract Law Equity Proprietary Estoppel Promissory Estoppel Family Farm Succession Formation and Enforceability of Contracts Unconscionability

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blake Tremain-Cannon

Plaintiff

Leanne Margaret Tremain

First Defendant

Ray Owen Cannon

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an enforceable agreement existed to grant the plaintiff a one-third interest in family farming land and partnership
  2. 2 Whether proprietary or promissory estoppel operates based on representations or promises made to the plaintiff by the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff altered his position to his detriment on the faith of promises or representations

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that any binding or enforceable agreement existed for the transfer of a one-third interest in the partnership or lands, or that the assurances or promises alleged were sufficiently clear or certain to ground proprietary or promissory estoppel. The Court found the plaintiff did not act to his detriment in reliance on any such promise or assurance, and that, even if there was such reliance, it would not have been reasonable. The evidence did not support unconscionability in allowing the defendants to refuse to transfer the proposed interests to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs.