Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48

Kramer v Stone [2024] HCA 48

Neither subsequent acts of encouragement by the promisor after the promise nor proof of the promisor’s actual knowledge of the promisee’s detrimental reliance are required to establish proprietary estoppel by encouragement. It is sufficient if a reasonable person in the promisor’s position would have expected...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Hilary Lorraine Kramer; Appellant: Other Executor of Dame Leonie's estate; Respondent: David Lindsay Stone
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia – Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Estoppel, Equitable Estoppel, Proprietary Estoppel, Proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement
Equity Estoppel Equitable Estoppel Proprietary Estoppel Proprietary Estoppel by Encouragement

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilary Lorraine Kramer

Appellant

Other Executor of Dame Leonie's estate

Appellant

David Lindsay Stone

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia – Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel by encouragement requires subsequent acts of encouragement by the promisor after the initial promise.
  2. 2 Whether proprietary estoppel by encouragement requires actual knowledge by the promisor that the promisee would act or had acted in detrimental reliance on the promise.

Ratio Decidendi

Neither subsequent acts of encouragement by the promisor after the promise nor proof of the promisor’s actual knowledge of the promisee’s detrimental reliance are required to establish proprietary estoppel by encouragement. It is sufficient if a reasonable person in the promisor’s position would have expected reliance, and detriment resulted from such reliance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.