Sayers v Sayers [2018] NSWCA 301

Sayers v Sayers [2018] NSWCA 301

The appeal failed because the primary judge's reasons for rejecting the alleged 1993 contract or promise were cogent and compelling; the documentary record and later correspondence were inconsistent with any such agreement, and no relevant detrimental reliance was established. The findings that the Statewide loan was for Cec and Inesita, that Bill was only a guarantor and that no Statewide funds benefited Bill or Toni were not shown to be erroneous. The appellants' delay in raising the contract and estoppel claims made equitable relief unjust, and Cec and Inesita were not entitled to contribution from Toni. Toni was entitled to her share of net proceeds and an indemnity for the use of her...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal in Equity Concerning Property, Estate, Contract, Promissory Estoppel and Contribution Claims / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, [2018] NSWSC 519
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['tenants in Common' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw)' 'constructive Trust' 'promissory Estoppel' 'intestacy' 'mortgage Debt and Reimbursement' 'contribution Between Co Owners' 'laches and Delay']
['equity' 'property Law' 'succession' 'contract Law'] ['tenants in Common' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale Under S 66 G of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (nsw)' 'constructive Trust' 'promissory Estoppel' 'intestacy' 'mortgage Debt and Reimbursement' 'contribution Between Co Owners' 'laches and Delay']

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

Civil Appeal in Equity Concerning Property, Estate, Contract, Promissory Estoppel and Contribution Claims / Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, [2018] NSWSC 519

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the alleged 1993 agreement or promise by Bill to leave his estate or interest in the Property to the Sons.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that Cec and Bill did not intend to create legal relations in the alleged 1993 conversations.' 'Whether mortgage advances and repayments secured over the Property after 1993 were for the benefit of Cec and Inesita and not also for the benefit of Bill.' 'Whether Cec detrimentally relied on any promise by paying mortgage instalments or working on the Property.' 'Whether delay and laches made it unjust to grant equitable relief on the contract or estoppel claims.' 'Whether Cec and Inesita were entitled to contribution from Toni for principal, interest, outgoings or improvements.' 'Whether Toni was entitled to reimbursement or indemnity for the amount paid from her share of sale proceeds to discharge the Statewide mortgage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge's reasons for rejecting the alleged 1993 contract or promise were cogent and compelling; the documentary record and later correspondence were inconsistent with any such agreement, and no relevant detrimental reliance was established. The findings that the Statewide loan was for Cec and Inesita, that Bill was only a guarantor and that no Statewide funds benefited Bill or Toni were not shown to be erroneous. The appellants' delay in raising the contract and estoppel claims made equitable relief unjust, and Cec and Inesita were not entitled to contribution from Toni. Toni was entitled to her share of net proceeds and an indemnity for the use of her...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including costs of the notice of motion of 22 October 2018."]