Kramer v StoneCitation:[2024] HCA 48Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson, Beech-Jones JJDate:11 Dec 2024Case Number:S53/2024Read more

Proprietary estoppel by encouragement does not require the promisee to prove subsequent acts of encouragement after the initial promise or that the promisor had actual knowledge of the promisee's detrimental reliance; it is sufficient that a clear and unequivocal promise was made and the promisee acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise.

Parties: Applicant: [Redacted]; Respondent: [Redacted]
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 11 December 2024
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment
Outcome: Judgment for the applicant
Legal Topics: Proprietary Estoppel, Equitable Estoppel, Estoppel by Encouragement

Equity Property Law Proprietary Estoppel Equitable Estoppel Estoppel by Encouragement

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

[Redacted]

Applicant

[Redacted]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether proprietary estoppel by encouragement arises where the promisor made a promise to bequeath property but did not further encourage reliance after the promise
2 Whether the promisee must prove subsequent acts of encouragement by the promisor after the initial promise
3 Whether the promisee must prove the promisor had actual knowledge of the promisee's detrimental reliance

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant

Orders

The property is to be transferred to the applicant in accordance with the original promise.
Costs awarded to the applicant.