Blacket v Barnett [2017] NSWSC 1032

Blacket v Barnett [2017] NSWSC 1032

The Plaintiff failed to establish that the deceased made a clear, unequivocal, and irrevocable promise or assurance to leave her estate or Undine Street property to him; any words relied upon were statements of revocable intent, not enforceable promises. Plaintiff’s reliance was objectively unreasonable given the circumstances, particularly repeated refusals by the deceased to sign relevant Wills. Any detriment suffered by Plaintiff was insubstantial and not material, thus relief (proprietary estoppel or equitable compensation) would be disproportionate and not justified. The elements of equitable estoppel (promise, reliance, detriment, unconscionability) were not established....

Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Peter Wilfred Blacket; First Defendant: Mr Graham Keith Barnett; Second Defendant: Mr Christopher Glen Gillis; Third Defendant: Mr John Frederick Hiscox
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff’s claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Equitable Remedies, Equitable Compensation, Laches and Acquiescence, Anshun Estoppel
Equity Proprietary Estoppel Equitable Remedies Equitable Compensation Laches and Acquiescence Anshun Estoppel

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 8 Authorities cited 61 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Peter Wilfred Blacket

Plaintiff

Mr Graham Keith Barnett

First Defendant

Mr Christopher Glen Gillis

Second Defendant

Mr John Frederick Hiscox

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased made an irrevocable promise or assurance to leave her estate or Undine Street property to the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiff relied upon such promise or assurance to his detriment
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel by encouragement is established

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff failed to establish that the deceased made a clear, unequivocal, and irrevocable promise or assurance to leave her estate or Undine Street property to him; any words relied upon were statements of revocable intent, not enforceable promises. Plaintiff’s reliance was objectively unreasonable given the circumstances, particularly repeated refusals by the deceased to sign relevant Wills. Any detriment suffered by Plaintiff was insubstantial and not material, thus relief (proprietary estoppel or equitable compensation) would be disproportionate and not justified. The elements of equitable estoppel (promise, reliance, detriment, unconscionability) were not established....

Court Disposition

Plaintiff’s claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim is dismissed, with costs.
  • The caveat on the title to the Undine Street, Russell Lea, property be removed within 7 days.