Sullivan v. Sullivan & Ors. [2006] NSWCA 312

Sullivan v. Sullivan & Ors. [2006] NSWCA 312

The promise, though not contractually binding, was sufficiently certain to create a reasonable expectation; the appellant acted to her detriment by surrendering subsidised and secure Housing Commission accommodation. Equity could not permit the respondents to evict her when she had relied so substantially on their promise, which the respondents intended and encouraged. Relief greater than reversing detriment may be granted but must not exceed what conscientious conduct demands; therefore, the appellant was entitled to stay for a further 7 years at $65 per week, indexed, conditional on taking care of the property.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment From Equity Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority decision), equity relief ordered with limited tenure.
Legal Topics
['proprietary Estoppel' 'estoppel by Encouragement' 'detrimental Reliance' 'relief in Equity']
['equity'] ['proprietary Estoppel' 'estoppel by Encouragement' 'detrimental Reliance' 'relief in Equity']

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 / Court of Appeal Judgment From Equity Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the representation that the appellant could occupy a house for life was sufficiently certain to support an estoppel' 'Whether detriment was proved by giving up Housing Commission accommodation' 'Whether proprietary estoppel was established to prevent eviction' 'What is the appropriate extent of relief']

Ratio Decidendi

The promise, though not contractually binding, was sufficiently certain to create a reasonable expectation; the appellant acted to her detriment by surrendering subsidised and secure Housing Commission accommodation. Equity could not permit the respondents to evict her when she had relied so substantially on their promise, which the respondents intended and encouraged. Relief greater than reversing detriment may be granted but must not exceed what conscientious conduct demands; therefore, the appellant was entitled to stay for a further 7 years at $65 per week, indexed, conditional on taking care of the property.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority decision), equity relief ordered with limited tenure.

Orders

  • ['Appellant to remain in the house for 7 further years, subject to payment of $65 per week with CPI adjustments and reasonable care of the property.' 'Opportunity given for further submissions on costs and final orders per outlined procedure.']