Lurline Faith Richardson v John David Lindsay & Anor [2018] NSWSC 1457

Lurline Faith Richardson v John David Lindsay & Anor [2018] NSWSC 1457

The plaintiff is estopped by her representations, words and conduct prior to the move to Lewis Ponds from insisting on the pre-Deed representations and the Deed's requirement that the parties reside in Orange. The evidence demonstrated the plaintiff agreed to, encouraged, or at least did not object to, the move; the defendants relied on her encouragement to their detriment in purchasing and mortgaging the Lewis Ponds Property. To allow the plaintiff now to resile and seek repayment or a charge would be unconscionable. Equitable estoppel binds the plaintiff and precludes her claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
['equitable Estoppel' 'estoppel by Deed' 'family Arrangement Deed' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'conditional Gift' 'suitability of Accommodation' 'equitable Charges']
['equity'] ['equitable Estoppel' 'estoppel by Deed' 'family Arrangement Deed' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'conditional Gift' 'suitability of Accommodation' 'equitable Charges']

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 Proceeding / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a charge or refund of $220,000 based on equitable estoppel or breach of a deed of family arrangement' 'Whether equitable estoppel operates in the face of a deed to preclude the plaintiff from requiring repayment or asserting breach' 'Whether a variation of deed required writing or was effective by conduct/representation' "Whether the plaintiff is estopped from relying on the deed's requirement to live in Orange"]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is estopped by her representations, words and conduct prior to the move to Lewis Ponds from insisting on the pre-Deed representations and the Deed's requirement that the parties reside in Orange. The evidence demonstrated the plaintiff agreed to, encouraged, or at least did not object to, the move; the defendants relied on her encouragement to their detriment in purchasing and mortgaging the Lewis Ponds Property. To allow the plaintiff now to resile and seek repayment or a charge would be unconscionable. Equitable estoppel binds the plaintiff and precludes her claims.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's claim dismissed in entirety" 'Parties to provide draft minutes of order; costs to be addressed if not agreed']