Kramer v Stone [2023] NSWCA 270

Kramer v Stone [2023] NSWCA 270

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled, on the evidence, to find that a clear assurance was made to the respondent, relied upon to his detriment, and that proprietary estoppel by encouragement did not require proof of the deceased's actual knowledge of detrimental reliance; it was sufficient that a reasonable person in the deceased's position ought to have known of the reliance, and the relief granted (transfer of the property in lieu of the legacy) was not disproportionate. Further, the application to adduce additional evidence on appeal was refused as not meeting the required standards or relevance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appeal From First Instance Judgment; Also Decision on Notice of Motion to Adduce Further Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; notice of motion to adduce further evidence dismissed
Legal Topics
['proprietary Estoppel' 'estoppel by Encouragement' 'constructive Trusts' 'assurances and Promises' 'unconscionability' 'testamentary Promises' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'relief and Proportionality']
['equity'] ['proprietary Estoppel' 'estoppel by Encouragement' 'constructive Trusts' 'assurances and Promises' 'unconscionability' 'testamentary Promises' 'further Evidence on Appeal' 'relief and Proportionality']

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

Appeal / Full Court Appeal From First Instance Judgment; Also Decision on Notice of Motion to Adduce Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in finding that a binding assurance was made to the respondent amounting to proprietary estoppel by encouragement' 'Whether the assurance was more than a revocable testamentary intention' 'Whether it was necessary for the deceased to have actual knowledge of detrimental reliance (vs constructive knowledge) to establish estoppel' 'Whether the relief (award of the property) was out of proportion to detriment' 'Whether additional evidence offered by appellants on appeal should be admitted']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge was entitled, on the evidence, to find that a clear assurance was made to the respondent, relied upon to his detriment, and that proprietary estoppel by encouragement did not require proof of the deceased's actual knowledge of detrimental reliance; it was sufficient that a reasonable person in the deceased's position ought to have known of the reliance, and the relief granted (transfer of the property in lieu of the legacy) was not disproportionate. Further, the application to adduce additional evidence on appeal was refused as not meeting the required standards or relevance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; notice of motion to adduce further evidence dismissed

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the appellants' notice of motion filed 24 July 2024 with costs." 'Dismiss the appeal with costs.']