Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWSC 875

Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWSC 875

Philip failed to prove any proprietary estoppel, promissory estoppel or contract inconsistent with s 66G relief. The Court found that Peter did not know of the alleged 2015 Will right to reside or its removal, there was no evidence of undue influence or duress by Peter, and no agreement or representation was made that the Property would not be sold until 2023. Without such a legal or equitable bar, the co-owned Property was an obvious case for appointment of trustees for sale under s 66G.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) for Appointment of Trustees for Sale / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Trustees for sale to be appointed under s 66G, subject to hearing the parties about the form of orders and costs.
Legal Topics
['co Ownership' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'appointment of Trustees' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'promissory Estoppel' 'contract']
['land Law' 'equity'] ['co Ownership' 'statutory Trust for Sale' 'appointment of Trustees' 'proprietary Estoppel' 'promissory Estoppel' 'contract']

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

Application Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw) for Appointment of Trustees for Sale / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders should be made under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) for appointment of trustees for sale of the Property.' 'Whether Philip had an extant legal or equitable right inconsistent with s 66G relief, including proprietary estoppel, promissory estoppel or contract.' 'Whether Peter knew of the alleged 2015 Will provision giving Philip a four year right to reside and its removal from the 2016 Will.' "Whether Peter exercised undue influence or duress on the parties' mother to remove Philip's alleged right to reside." 'Whether Peter represented or agreed in March 2021 that the Property would not be sold until 2023.']

Ratio Decidendi

Philip failed to prove any proprietary estoppel, promissory estoppel or contract inconsistent with s 66G relief. The Court found that Peter did not know of the alleged 2015 Will right to reside or its removal, there was no evidence of undue influence or duress by Peter, and no agreement or representation was made that the Property would not be sold until 2023. Without such a legal or equitable bar, the co-owned Property was an obvious case for appointment of trustees for sale under s 66G.

Court Disposition

Trustees for sale to be appointed under s 66G, subject to hearing the parties about the form of orders and costs.

Orders

  • ['Trustees for sale of the Property to be appointed.' 'Parties to be heard on the form of orders, including whether Philip can demonstrate any possibility of raising funds within a reasonable time to bid at any auction, and on costs.']