Manno v Manno [2016] NSWSC 493

Manno v Manno [2016] NSWSC 493

Even assuming Sam and Gaetana Manno said they intended to subdivide Lot 1 and give Joseph Manno and his siblings lots from the subdivision, Joseph Manno was not induced by that statement to join or remain in the business, proved no detriment, any reliance was not reasonable because he knew subdivision depended on council approval and future circumstances, and the subdivision never occurred for explained reasons; it was therefore not unconscionable for the defendants not to transfer or compensate him for a subdivided lot.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Equitable Estoppel and Proprietary Estoppel Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Further amended statement of claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['equitable Estoppel' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'family Relationship' 'alleged Representation to Subdivide Land' 'detrimental Reliance' 'unconscionability']
['equity' 'estoppel' 'property Law'] ['equitable Estoppel' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'family Relationship' 'alleged Representation to Subdivide Land' 'detrimental Reliance' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Equitable Estoppel and Proprietary Estoppel Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Sam and Gaetana Manno represented to Joseph Manno that they would subdivide Lot 1 and give him and his siblings a lot from the subdivision.' 'Whether Joseph Manno relied on any such representation by joining or remaining in the family business.' 'Whether Joseph Manno suffered detriment in reliance on any representation.' 'Whether it was unconscionable for Sam and Gaetana Manno not to honour any representation after the subdivision did not proceed and Lot 1 was sold.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming Sam and Gaetana Manno said they intended to subdivide Lot 1 and give Joseph Manno and his siblings lots from the subdivision, Joseph Manno was not induced by that statement to join or remain in the business, proved no detriment, any reliance was not reasonable because he knew subdivision depended on council approval and future circumstances, and the subdivision never occurred for explained reasons; it was therefore not unconscionable for the defendants not to transfer or compensate him for a subdivided lot.

Court Disposition

Further amended statement of claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings should be dismissed.']