Burton v Prior [2015] NSWSC 295

Burton v Prior [2015] NSWSC 295

The evidence did not establish any agreement or assumption that the joint tenancy would not be severed, nor any detrimental reliance by the plaintiff. Accordingly there was no serious question to be tried on agreement or estoppel that would preclude the defendant from registering a transfer severing the joint tenancy, and the interlocutory application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Duty List Proceedings Concerning Joint Tenancy and an Order Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Relief Pending Final Determination
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion filed 12 March 2015 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['joint Tenancy' 'severance of Joint Tenancy' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'equitable Estoppel' 'constructive Trust' 'section 66 G Sale']
['property Law' 'equity'] ['joint Tenancy' 'severance of Joint Tenancy' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'equitable Estoppel' 'constructive Trust' 'section 66 G Sale']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Division Duty List Proceedings Concerning Joint Tenancy and an Order Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Relief Pending Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the defendant agreed not to sever the joint tenancy.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the plaintiff adopted an assumption that the joint tenancy would not be severed and acted upon it so that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to sever it.' 'Whether interlocutory relief should restrain the defendant from severing the joint tenancy or restrain registration of a transfer severing the joint tenancy.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish any agreement or assumption that the joint tenancy would not be severed, nor any detrimental reliance by the plaintiff. Accordingly there was no serious question to be tried on agreement or estoppel that would preclude the defendant from registering a transfer severing the joint tenancy, and the interlocutory application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion filed 12 March 2015 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 12 March 2015 be dismissed with costs."]