Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 234

Proietti v Proietti [2022] NSWCA 234

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no denial of procedural fairness, no actual or apprehended bias by the primary judge, and that none of the proprietary or promissory estoppel or contract defences were established. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof for those defences. Orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) were appropriate given the absence of legal or equitable rights inconsistent with sale of the co-owned property.

Parties
Appellant: Philip Proietti; Respondent: Peter Proietti
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Co Ownership, Statutory Trust for Partition, Appointment of Trustees, Proprietary Estoppel, Promissory Estoppel, Contract, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Evidence, Appeals
Land Law Equity Civil Procedure Co Ownership Statutory Trust for Partition Appointment of Trustees Proprietary Estoppel Promissory Estoppel +5 more

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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Proietti

Appellant

Peter Proietti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of procedural fairness occurred in the proceedings for the sale of co-owned property under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in treating parts of the appellant's affidavit as submissions or inadmissible evidence
  3. 3 Whether actual or apprehended bias was demonstrated by the primary judge

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no denial of procedural fairness, no actual or apprehended bias by the primary judge, and that none of the proprietary or promissory estoppel or contract defences were established. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proof for those defences. Orders under s 66G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) were appropriate given the absence of legal or equitable rights inconsistent with sale of the co-owned property.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 25 July 2022 with costs.
  • Dismiss the appeal.