ESTOPPEL in PROPERTY CASES PRINCIPLES and DEVELOPMENTS. Dr Simon Blount*

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "ESTOPPEL in PROPERTY CASES PRINCIPLES and DEVELOPMENTS. Dr Simon Blount*"

Transcription

1 1 ESTOPPEL in PROPERTY CASES PRINCIPLES and DEVELOPMENTS Dr Simon Blount* Equity is concerned with good conscience, not a sentimental urge to render sinners virtuous. 1 COMMON LAW AND EQUITABLE ESTOPPELS Despite the attempt of the High Court in Commonwealth v Verwayen 2 to unify the law of estoppel under a single overarching doctrine grounded in unconscionability, estoppels at common law and in equity continue to be governed by different doctrines and rules. Common law estoppels are essentially rules of evidence. They include estoppel by judgment; estoppel by deed; estoppel by convention; common law estoppel; and estoppel by representation. Estoppel by judgment is known to lawyers as res judicata or issue estoppel. Equity has also developed the Anshun estoppel, 3 preventing a party from raising an issue in subsequent proceedings that could and should have been raised in prior proceedings. Estoppel by deed prevents a party from denying representations set out in recitals to a deed. Estoppel by convention stops parties from denying the agreed or assumed state of facts which had formed the basis of their mutual relations. 4 Common law estoppel prevents a party from denying its conduct, whereas estoppel by representation prevents a party from denying its representations of fact. There is no bright line between common law estoppels operating as rules of evidence and equitable estoppels. Meagher, Gummow and Lehane s Equity Doctrines and Remedies 4 th takes the view that Dixon J was seeking to * Barrister, Adjunct Associate Professor, Notre Dame University, Australia, School of Law, Sydney. 1 Meagher R, Hayden D, Leeming M (2002) Meagher Gummow and Lehane s Equity Doctrines and Remedies Fourth Ed. at [17-075]. 2 (1990) 170 CLR Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Limited (1986) 160 CLR 226 at 244

2 2 establish a single doctrine of estoppel by conduct operating consistently at law and in equity: [17-025] In Dixon J s view the rules governing estoppel are based upon the principles that a party should not be permitted unjustly to depart from an assumption which he has caused another party to adopt or accept for the purpose of their legal relations and that the purpose of preventing such a departure is to avoid or prevent a detriment to the party who, by adhering to the assumption, has acted or abstained from acting and thus changed his position. 5 However, despite the efforts of Dixon J, estoppel by representation has continued to be limited by the decision in Jordan v Money 6 which held that an estoppel could not arise from a representation of future intention and is limited to representations of past or present fact. Equitable estoppels, variously described as estoppel by encouragement, estoppel by acquiescence, promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel, 7 do not labour under the restrictions of Jordan v Money. The principles of promissory estoppel in particular have been considered and extended in a number of decisions in the High Court. In Legione v Hateley 8 the High Court accepted that promissory estoppel could ground a claim, as well as a defence, but found on the facts that the statement relied on by the plaintiff was not sufficiently promissory. In Waltons Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher 9, the court made out a claim on the principles of promissory estoppel. The court did not reject Jordan v Money, but rather developed the equitable principle applied in Central London Property Trust Limited v High Trees House Limited, 10 which prevented a party from resiling from his or her representation as to the exercise of existing contractual rights, extended in Bank Negara Indonesia v Hoalim 11 (cited with approval in Saleh v Romanous 12 ), as applying to rights 5 (1937) 58 CLR 710 at (1854) 5 HLC Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro (1988) 13 NSWLR 466 per Priestly JA at (1983) 152 CLR (1988) 164 CLR [1947] KB 130, 11 (1973) 3 PCC [2010] NSWSC 274 at [64]

3 3 which although not pre-existing, come into existence on the change of the position of the representee. It is often overlooked that the majority in Waltons Stores found different estoppels. Mason CJ and Wilson J, and Brennan J in a separate judgment, decided on the basis of promissory estoppel. Deane and Gaudron JJ decided on the basis of a common law representation by the appellant, or an induced assumption by the respondent, of the fact that the contract in dispute existed. The practical difference between common law and equitable estoppels may sound in the different remedies they support. Common law estoppels do not create a right. The right flows from the state of facts found by the court. Equitable estoppels create an equity which is itself a source of rights. 13 Because common law estoppel prevents the estopped party from denying a fact, such as the existence of a contract, the other party may theoretically be able to cross-claim on the contract for breach sounding in expectations damages. However, an equity giving rise to a remedy such as equitable compensation payable by the estopped party, is limited to making good the detriment. The limitations of the remedy on the making out of a promissory estoppel were made clear in Commonwealth v Verwayen 14 where the court characterised the appropriate relief as the minimum equity to do justice. PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL Proprietary estoppel arises from a representation as to the future, has the capacity to create new rights between parties in respect of real property and is grounded in unconscionability. Mason CJ and Wilson J defined proprietary estoppel as:... a person whose conduct creates or lends force to an assumption by another that he will obtain an interest in the first person s land and on the basis that expectation another person alters his position or acts to his detriment, may bring into existence an equity in favour of that other person, the nature and extent of the equity depending on the circumstances Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro (1988) 13 NSWLR 466 per Priestly JA at (1990) 170 CLR Waltons Stores v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 at [404]

4 4 There are two lines of authority in proprietary estoppel. Ramsden v Dyson 16 and Dillwyn v Llewelyn 17 are both exceptions to the rule that if A spends money on the property of B then A has not acquired a proprietary interest in the property. 18 The Ramsden v Dyson line of authority binds the owner of property who induces another to expect that an interest in the property will be conferred on him. The Dillwyn v Llewelyn line of authority binds the donor of property where, after the making of an imperfect gift, the donor induces the donee to act on the assumption that the imperfect gift is effective. The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is essentially based on three main heads: assurance; reliance; and detriment. There can be a wide range of variation in in the quality of the assurances necessary to give rise to an expectation, and the extent of the detrimental reliance needed to sound in a remedy. According to Meagher Gummow and Lehane s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies 4 th ed the evidence should establish the following propositions: (a) that A has given or will give B an interest in real property; (b) that A has knowledge of the expectation of B; (c) that B incurs detriment in reliance on this expectation by expenditure on the property or the giving up or non-enforcement of rights he or she may have in relation to the real property; (d) that A can lawfully pass the promise, interest or expectation to B; (e) (f) that A encourages B in, or at least has knowledge of, the detriment incurred by B; that A knows that he has property rights to enjoy, control and dispose of. 19 Although the heads of proprietary estoppel appear as a matter of precedent and logic to be reasonably settled, there is much less certainty about the 16 (1866) LR 1 HL (1862) 4 DEG F & J Meagher R, Hayden, Leeming M (2002) Meagher Gummow and Lehane s Equity Doctrines and Remedies Fourth Ed. at [17-100] 19 Meagher R, Hayden, Leeming M (2002) Meagher Gummow and Lehane s Equity Doctrines and Remedies Fourth Ed. at [17-105]

5 5 remedies that may be available on their proof. Where a proprietary estoppel has been made out in respect of an imperfect gift, the most likely remedy will be an order perfecting the gift by conveyance or transfer of the interest, although where no conveyance or transfer can effectively be made, the promisee may have to make do with a lesser remedy of an equitable charge or lien. Where a proprietary estoppel is made out on the basis of a representation to transfer an interest in land simpliciter the prima facie remedy is not the fulfilment of the promise by the conveyance or transfer of the interest in the land, as is the case under the Dillwyn v Llewelyn line of authorities, but the stripping of the profit made by the promissor on the strength of his or her unfulfilled promise. 20 Foundation decisions in proprietary estoppel In Inwards v Baker 21 a son built a house on his father s land at the invitation of his father. The son bore most of the expenses of construction although the father gave him some assistance. The father died leaving a will that had been made before the construction of the house leaving the son 400. Eventually the executrix, Ms Inwards, sought to eject the son from the land arguing that at most, he had no more than a licence to occupy. On appeal, Denning MR stated: It is quite plain that if the owner of land requests another, or indeed allows another, to expend money on the land under an expectation created or encouraged by the landlord that he will be able to remain there, that raises an equity in the licensee such as to entitle them to stay. He has a licence coupled with an equity.... Even though there is no binding contract to bind any particular interest to the licensee, nevertheless the Court can look at the circumstances and see whether there is an equity arising out of the expenditure of money. All that is necessary is that the licensee should, at the request or with the encouragement of the landlord, have spent the money in the expectation of being allowed to stay there. If so the Court will not allow that expectation to be defeated where it would be inequitable to do so... [should] the father... sell the land to a purchaser... any purchaser who took the notice would clearly be bound by the equity. So here, too, the present plaintiffs the successors in title of the father, are clearly themselves bound 20 Meagher R, Hayden, Leeming M (2002) Meagher Gummow and Lehane s Equity Doctrines and Remedies Fourth Ed. at [17-105] 21 [1965] 2 QB 29

6 6 by this equity. It is an equity well recognised in law. That arises from the expenditure of money by a person in actual occupation of land when he was led to believe that, as a result of that expenditure, he will be allowed to remain there. Crabb v Arun District Council 22 concerned the future acquisition of property. The respondent had led the appellant to believe that he would be granted an easement. Although there was no definite assurance the respondent erected gates at the point of the proposed easement leading the appellant to believe that it had agreed that he should have the easement. Further, the respondent knew that it was commercially necessary for the appellant to have the easement. On appeal, the appellant argued that his claim of proprietary estoppel limited or extinguished the legal title of the respondent and created new rights and interests in equity in the appellant by reason of what the respondent had led him to believe, even though the respondent had never intended it. Denning MR, again, held that it was inequitable that the respondent should subsequently insist on its strict legal title, taking the high handed action of pulling down the gates without warning and demanding that the appellant pay 3000 as the price of the easement. In Giumelli v Giumelli 23 a son worked without wages in the family orchard business on an assumption induced by his parents that he would be given a share in real property. He built a house on the property and bore most of the costs on an inducement that it would be his. He also rejected an offer of employment from his father in law on a further assurance from his parents that he would be given a subdivided lot of defined real property. The son left the property against his parents wishes, and his brother made substantial improvements to the lot that had been promised to the son. The decision is an example of a remedy for a Dillwyn v Llewelyn type promise. Because the rights of an innocent third party, the brother of the plaintiff who commenced living in the house when the son left, would have been adversely affected had the court made an order for a constructive trust over the land in dispute, the 22 [1976] CH (1999) 196 CLR 101

7 7 court made an order for equitable compensation in lieu of a conveyance of the land. A party relying on proprietary estoppel must contend with considerable uncertainty in its application. Much of the uncertainty is doctrinal. Like promissory estoppel, proprietary estoppel relies on a representation supported by detriment. However, unlike promissory estoppel, the default remedy is in rem, not in personam. The most important in rem remedy is the imposition of a constructive trust on the promissor, making him or her trustee of the real property for the benefit of the promissee. The conflation of in personam and in rem principles may explain why proprietary estoppels have been spoken of as analogous to constructive trusts, or even as a form of constructive trust. Although it is reasonably plain that the equitable claim is the in personam liability and the constructive trust is the in rem remedy, it is arguable that the conflation of principles explains why remedies may vary so widely. 24 Further, uncertainty surrounds the relationship of proprietary estoppel to other equitable estoppels, particularly promissory estoppel. Following the significant development of promissory estoppel in Australia, it is an open question whether proprietary estoppel remains as an independent claim, or whether it has been subsumed into a single overarching doctrine of equitable estoppel. The question is not simply academic, as much may turn on whether the quality of the representation necessary to support a proprietary estoppel is the same as the promissory quality required to support a promissory estoppel. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL Two recent decisions, both concerning leases, have considered the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, its relationship to promissory estoppel, the quality of the representation needed to support the claim and whether equitable principles are fractured according to whether the relationship between the parties is commercial or domestic. In Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel 24 Meagher R, Hayden, Leeming M (2002) Meagher Gummow and Lehane s Equity Doctrines and Remedies Fourth Ed. at [17-105]

8 8 (VIC) Pty Ltd, 25 Crown leased premises to Cosmopolitan. When the leases came up for renewal, the proposed five year leases were without options for renewal and Cosmopolitan was required to undertake substantial refurbishments at its own expense. Cosmopolitan was concerned that the refurbishment costs might not be recouped within five years, but an officer of Crown stated that Cosmopolitan would be looked after at renewal time. Cosmopolitan entered into the new leases in alleged reliance on this representation. However, when the new leases expired, Cosmopolitan was not offered new leases. At first instance, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the representation gave rise to a collateral contract to the benefit of Cosmopolitan and that Crown was estopped from denying the existence of the collateral contract. On appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court the court found that the representation was not sufficiently promissory to constitute a collateral contract. It followed that there was nothing that Crown was estopped from denying. The Court of Appeal allowed the promissory estoppel claim but because it did not operate as a rule of evidence estopping Crown from denying the existence of a contract, but operated as a substantive claim in its own right, the court remitted the matter to the tribunal for further consideration. On appeal to the High Court, Cosmopolitan sought leave to cross appeal from the finding that there was no collateral contract. A majority of the court found that the representation relied on by Cosmopolitan was insufficient to ground a collateral contract because it was either insufficiently promissory in nature or illusory. On the estoppel point, the plurality, French CJ, Keifel and Bell JJ, held that to ground an estoppel a representation must be clear, precise and unambiguous. The statement that the respondents would be looked after at renewal time was insufficient to raise an estoppel. Keane J agreed saying at [143]: It would tend to reduce the law to incoherence if a representation, too uncertain or ambiguous to give rise to a contract or a variation of contractual 25 (2016) 90 ALJR 770

9 9 rights and liabilities, were held to be sufficient to found a promissory estoppel. Nettle J disagreed at [211], [212]: What is determinative in cases of promissory estoppel is whether the party sought to be estopped has played such a part in creating an assumption or expectation in the mind of a claimant, in reliance on which the claimant has acted to the claimant s detriment, that it would be unconscionable for the estopped party to depart from the assumption or expectation before allowing the claimant reasonable time in which to revert to the status quo... Ultimately, the disagreement didn t matter, as the court found that the evidence of the director of Cosmopolitan did not amount to him having acted on an expectation that Cosmopolitan would be granted a further lease on terms acceptable to it. 26 The court did not give an opinion as to whether there is a single unified doctrine of estoppel as Cosmopolitan had only ever advanced its case as one of promissory, not proprietary, estoppel. 27 The issue could have arisen on an argument that the requirement of certainty of the representation was less stringent for proprietary estoppel than for promissory estoppel. 28 Keane J, however, did provide some clues as to the characteristics distinguishing promissory from proprietary estoppel. [145] The principal practical difference between promissory and proprietary estoppel arises from the circumstances in which each is deployed: the former operates in relation to contracts, whereas the latter is concerned with a recognition of interests in property by way of relief against unconscionable conduct. [146] Proprietary estoppel affords relief against unconscionable conduct where a departure from an assurance means that the representor s conduct is to be regarded as contrary to good conscience. In proprietary estoppel, it is necessary to consider both the subjective reliance of the representee and the extent to which the representor can, in good conscience, be held to be responsible for the representee s actions. The representors is not acting contrary to good conscience in refusing to conform its conduct to the 26 at [160] 27 at [37], [38] 28 at [76]

10 10 predicament produced by the representee s unreasonable misunderstanding of a representation made to it. [147] Where a contractual right or liability is to be altered, coherence in the law requires that the representation which is said to bring about that alteration should be no less certain in its terms than would be required for an effective contractual variation [149] The concern that estoppel should not operate incoherent with the law of contract does not arise where proprietary estoppel is invoked precisely because there is no charter of contractually based rights and obligations governing the parties relationship... [150] In Giumelli this Court explained the doctrinal basis of relief by way of proprietary estoppel as involving the recognition of a constructive trust and property whereby the legal title of the owner of property is subjected by order of the Court to limitations necessary to meet the requirements and good conscience. Nettle J again, at [215], [217] appeared to disagree that there is a difference in the certainty of the representation required to ground promissory and proprietary estoppels: [215]... whatever degree of certainty might be necessary to found a promissory estoppel of the kind considered in Legione... proprietary estoppels of the kinds exemplified and dealt with in Llewelyn and Ramsden v Dyson do not require any particular degree of objective certainty and proprietary estoppels of those kinds are a form of promissory estoppel... proprietary estoppel is a sub species of promissory estoppel. The estoppel becomes a proprietary estoppel - a sub species of promissory estoppel - if the right claimed is a proprietary right, usually a right to or over land but, in principle, equally available in relation to chattels or choses in action. [217] The foundational principle on which equitable estoppel in all its forms is grounded is that equity will not permit an unjust or unconscionable departure by a party following assumption or expectation of fact or law, present or future, which that party has caused another party to adopt for the purpose of their legal relations. Consequently, the notion that there is or should be some a priori distinction between the degree of objective certainty required to found a promissory estoppel compared to proprietary estoppel runs counter to principle.

11 11 The idea of one overarching doctrine of estoppel rather a series of independent rules may not have yet won general acceptance. But, and as much as the recognised categories of equitable estoppel or instances of the operation of the more general foundational principle, the determination of whether it is unconscionable for the charged party to part from an assumption or expectation created in the mind of the Claimant must always depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The recognised applications of established categories of promissory estoppel are not necessarily exhaustive of the cases in which equity will intervene... Doueihi v Construction Technology Australia 29 also dealt with a five year lease. The first four appellants ( the owners ) purchased a property to accommodate their company, Marble Plus Pty Ltd and Construction Technologies Australia Pty Ltd ( CTA ), which was majority owned by Mr Hogan. The owners knew that the premises were designed and built to accommodate CTA s adhesive manufacturing plant, that it was expensive to install and it would be expensive and disruptive to CTA to remove. In the event, CTA spent nearly $1,000,000 installing its plant and equipment. Mr Hogan told the owners that CTA would need a five year lease with a five year option to justify its expenditure. Mr Doueihi negotiating on the other owners behalf said that sounded fair. Mr Hogan, who was married to one of the owners assumed, consistently with the owners family practice of not making formal tenancy agreements, that CTA did not need to make a formal agreement for lease. Mr Hogan and his wife separated, following which CTA attempted to formalise its lease. However, CTA was only offered a short term lease with a significant increase in rent. Following this, CTA was given notice to quit. CTA brought proceedings in the Supreme Court claiming there was a binding agreement for lease between it and either the owners or Marble Plus for five years at a rent of $12,000 per month with an option for renewal for a further five years. Alternatively, CTA claimed that it had the benefit of either a conventional or an equitable estoppel against the owners or Marble Plus estopping them from denying the existence of an equitable lease or sub-lease from Marble Plus. At first instance, White J rejected CTA s contract claim and the conventional estoppel claim but upheld the claim to an equitable estoppel 29 [2016] NSWCA 105

12 12 characterised as a proprietary estoppel by encouragement. His Honour found that although in oral negotiations the parties had reached a consensus on rent, the term of a lease, an option for renewal and the area to be occupied CTA there was no objective intent to form legal relations sufficient to support a contract. He then went on to consider the conventional estoppel claim that the parties had all adopted the same assumption as to the terms of their legal relationship. However, on the facts there was not sufficient commonality of assumption to support the claim. The judge decided the case under the doctrine of equitable estoppel by encouragement which he characterised as belonging to the lines of authority in Dillwyn v Llewelyn and Ramsden v Dyson. The appeal raised two main groups of issues. First, the quality or nature of the assumption required to found an equitable proprietary estoppel, the reasonableness of the assumption as found at first instance and reliance on it by CTA, and whether it was unconscionable for the appellants to depart from that assumption. The second issue turned on the completeness of the bargain between CTA and the appellants, particularly the absence of agreement as to rent over the entire term and as to all commercial terms and whether they rendered unreasonable reliance by CTA on an assumption that an interest in the premises would be granted to it. The court per Gleeson JA, Beazley P and Leeming JA agreeing, held that the assurance given to CTA created or encouraged an expectation or assumption that CTA would be granted an interest in the premises in circumstances where there was a consensus as to the essential terms of CTA s occupancy of the premises and the parties had no expectation that a formal lease would be entered into. Doctrinally, the court made observations about the quality of the representation that were similar to those of Keane J in Crown v Cosmopolitan: a. Although a promissory estoppel requires an expectation or assumption of a particular legal relationship, the same level of specificity is not necessary to establish a proprietary estoppel. A proprietary estoppel may be

13 13 established notwithstanding that a representation is insufficiently certain in the sense that it would be insufficiently certain to found a contract. For instance, in Giumelli v Giumelli the High Court held that a party should be estopped from denying its promise to give a portion of land even though the boundaries of the portion were not precisely defined. However, a mere hope is not sufficient to support an equity. b. The circumstances in which proprietary estoppel will arise include those in which assurances were given which created or encouraged an assumption that a particular enforceable relationship would be established, or an interest would be granted. However, the elements of promissory estoppel formulated by Brennan J in Waltons Stores were not formulated to take into account the different circumstances involved where representations are made in respect of interests in land. It follows that the first element enunciated by Brennan J of a promissory estoppel, that a particular legal relationship would come into existence, is not a necessary element of a proprietary estoppel claim; c. Finally, it made no difference that the dealing was domestic rather than commercial. Most claims for estoppel fall into one of two categories: commercial where the parties typically contemplate a legal relationship; and domestic where the parties usually have no intention of entering into a written contract or formalising the expectation. However, the commercial or domestic nature of the relationship between the parties is not determinative and every case is to be decided on its own circumstances. Tadrous v Tadrous 30 does not stand for the proposition that equitable principles are fragmented according to the commercial or domestic relationship of the parties. It is permissible to give greater weight to a domestic context than a commercial context in deciding where an equity should lie without having to rely on any different principle of equity applying to a domestic relationship. 30 [2012] NSWCA 16

14 14 CONCLUSION The law of proprietary estoppel has not yet been subsumed into a single doctrine of equitable estoppel. It remains as an independent equitable claim fixing on representations about future interests in land. As the law currently stands, the standard of a representation sufficient to support a proprietary estoppel is less than the standard of a representation sufficient to support a promissory estoppel. This may explain why a representation as vague as looked after at renewal time, made in Crown v Cosmopolitan, went all the way to the High Court. It is also not necessary that the representee should assume that a particular legal relationship would exist. In Doueihi none of the parties expected to enter into a legal agreement. Finally, equitable principles do not vary according to whether the parties are in a commercial or a domestic relationship. However, remedies for proprietary estoppel will vary from a constructive trust, to an equitable charge, to equitable compensation, depending on the justice of case, including the rights of third parties.

Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment

Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment Bond Law Review Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 8 1999 Equitable Estoppel: Defining the Detriment Denis S. K Ong Bond University, denis_ong@bond.edu.au Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr

More information

Conveyancing and property

Conveyancing and property Editor: Peter Butt THREE MOOT POINTS Editorial introduction: We begin this month s column with three moot points two contributed by a reader, and one by the Editor. Any comments on the issues raised would

More information

INTRODUCTION. The Principle of Estoppel

INTRODUCTION. The Principle of Estoppel PART VIII ESTOPPEL I INTRODUCTION A The Principle of Estoppel An estoppel is a principle that prevents a party from asserting a contrary position to that which has already been established. An estoppel

More information

EQUITY NOTES. Equity has the capacity to develop new rights and remedies for the benefit of plaintiffs

EQUITY NOTES. Equity has the capacity to develop new rights and remedies for the benefit of plaintiffs EQUITY NOTES THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF EQUITY Equity has the capacity to develop new rights and remedies for the benefit of plaintiffs Pilmer v Duke Group 2001 Kirby J: The list of persons owing fiduciary

More information

Body Corporate Plan No. PS509946A v VM Romano Construction Group Pty Ltd & Anor (Domestic Building) [2009] VCAT 1662

Body Corporate Plan No. PS509946A v VM Romano Construction Group Pty Ltd & Anor (Domestic Building) [2009] VCAT 1662 VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D679/2007 CATCHWORDS Whether leave to withdraw earlier admissions should be granted APPLICANT FIRST

More information

RESCISSION 1. Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March Edmund Finnane 2

RESCISSION 1. Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March Edmund Finnane 2 RESCISSION 1 Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March 2009 Edmund Finnane 2 1 RESCISSION - AT LAW AND IN EQUITY The term rescission is used in various senses, but in its narrow sense the term is concerned

More information

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL IN THE 21 ST CENTURY: REVISITING THE LESSONS OF WALTONS STORES V MAHER DANIEL BRIAN HARRIS*

EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL IN THE 21 ST CENTURY: REVISITING THE LESSONS OF WALTONS STORES V MAHER DANIEL BRIAN HARRIS* EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL IN THE 21 ST CENTURY: REVISITING THE LESSONS OF WALTONS STORES V MAHER DANIEL BRIAN HARRIS* 1 * Acknowledgement: this thesis is dedicated to Jasmine Chia, and?, who were both immensely

More information

DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES. A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003

DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES. A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003 DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003 DARWIN - 30 MAY 2003 John Basten QC Dr Crock has provided

More information

OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW

OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW Liability is generally the key issue in regards to contractual disputes. Purpose of K law is to provide the rules which determine when one party is liable to another under or in

More information

Although simplistic views of jurisprudence may be an invitation to error, an insight into Equity can be obtained be remembering that:

Although simplistic views of jurisprudence may be an invitation to error, an insight into Equity can be obtained be remembering that: Equity: Summary Lecture Notes G C Lindsay SC, Revised July 1999, 20 September 2007 An Introduction to Equity Historical analyses of the role of the Lord Chancellor and the interaction between Equity and

More information

IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE?

IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE? IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE? Mohamed's Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (183/17) [2017] ZASCA 176 (1 December 2017)

More information

The highly anticipated conclusion to a five-year battle over the status of the

The highly anticipated conclusion to a five-year battle over the status of the Rozelle Macalincag* PACIOCCO v AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD (2016) 90 ALJR 835 I Introduction The highly anticipated conclusion to a five-year battle over the status of the doctrine of penalties

More information

CONVEYANCING LECTURE ON 6 AUGUST 2007

CONVEYANCING LECTURE ON 6 AUGUST 2007 CONVEYANCING LECTURE ON 6 AUGUST 2007 Note: Students should read the Chapters in Lang & Skapinker and the cases referred to in the Guide. These notes are NOT a substitute for reading the text and considering

More information

Insolvent Companies s 553C

Insolvent Companies s 553C Insolvent Companies s 553C Mutual Credit and Set-offs Jessie Earl Senior Associate Tottle Partners 2 November 2016 Discussion points 1. The provisions 2. The leading authorities 3. The purpose of s 553C

More information

a) The body of law as made by judges through the determination of cases. d) The system of law that emerged following the Norman Conquest in 1066.

a) The body of law as made by judges through the determination of cases. d) The system of law that emerged following the Norman Conquest in 1066. 1. Who of the following was NOT a proponent of natural law? a) Aristotle b) Jeremy Bentham c) St Augustine d) St Thomas Aquinas 2. The term 'common law' has three different meanings. Which of the following

More information

Adjudicators Discussion 15 June 2016

Adjudicators Discussion 15 June 2016 Probuild Constructions v DDI Group Alucity v ASC/ Alucity v Hick Adjudicators Discussion 15 June 2016 David Campbell-Williams Two recent cases Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v DDI Group Pty Ltd

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 4490 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159 JOHN HOLLAND

More information

In the contractual context partial failure of consideration is concerned with. Partial Failure of Consideration JOHN TARRANT *

In the contractual context partial failure of consideration is concerned with. Partial Failure of Consideration JOHN TARRANT * PARTIAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION 59 Partial Failure of Consideration JOHN TARRANT * The common law has long made a distinction between total failure of consideration and partial failure of consideration.

More information

Reasonableness and withholding consent to an assignment of contractual rights

Reasonableness and withholding consent to an assignment of contractual rights Investing in Infrastructure International Best Legal Practice in Project and Construction Agreements January 2016 Damian McNair Partner, Legal M: +61 421 899 231 E: damian.mcnair@au.pwc.com Reasonableness

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2016] FCA 754 File number: NSD 792 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 29 June 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE application

More information

FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED First Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and White JJ

FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED First Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and White JJ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA24/2014 [2014] NZCA 407 BETWEEN AND WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant FANSHAWE 136 LIMITED First Respondent 136 FANSHAWE LIMITED Second Respondent FANSHAWE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-00349 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND CHAN PERSAD DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For the Claimant:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER REASONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER REASONS TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. Cv. 2010-03934 BETWEEN RANDY CHARLES CLAIMANT AND MARION PHILLIPS DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER APPEARANCES Ms.

More information

Promissory Estoppel : Applicability on Govt - By Divya Bhargava Tuesday, 10 November :48 - Last Updated Wednesday, 11 November :01

Promissory Estoppel : Applicability on Govt - By Divya Bhargava Tuesday, 10 November :48 - Last Updated Wednesday, 11 November :01 The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is an equitable doctrine. This principle is commonly invoked in common law in case of breach of contract or against a Government. The doctrine is popularly called as

More information

What is equity? Equity as a body of law

What is equity? Equity as a body of law What is equity? Purpose of equity: to work alongside/supplements the common law, rather than overwhelm it. Equity and justice Principle: Equity ameliorates the harshness of the common law by proposing

More information

JUDGMENT. Rolle Family and Company Limited (Appellant) v Rolle (Respondent) (Bahamas)

JUDGMENT. Rolle Family and Company Limited (Appellant) v Rolle (Respondent) (Bahamas) Michaelmas Term [2017] UKPC 35 Privy Council Appeal No 0095 of 2015 JUDGMENT Rolle Family and Company Limited (Appellant) v Rolle (Respondent) (Bahamas) From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of

More information

CONTRACTS AND SALES QUESTION 1

CONTRACTS AND SALES QUESTION 1 CONTRACTS AND SALES QUESTION Peter responded to an advertisement placed by Della, a dentist, seeking a dental hygienist. After an interview, Della offered Peter the job and said she would either: () pay

More information

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT LAWS OF KENYA LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 22 Revised Edition 2012 [2010] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2012]

More information

CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER

CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER CAVEATS AGAINST DEALINGS IN LAND WHEN TO LODGE AND HOW TO REMOVE PRESENTED ON 14 FEBRUARY 2014 BY NICHOLAS JONES, BARRISTER POWER TO LODGE A CAVEAT 1. Section 89(1) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 provides

More information

THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST OF A RESIDUARY BENEFICIARY IN AN UNADMINISTERED ESTATE

THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST OF A RESIDUARY BENEFICIARY IN AN UNADMINISTERED ESTATE THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST OF A RESIDUARY BENEFICIARY IN AN UNADMINISTERED ESTATE COMMISSIONER OF STAMP DUTIES v. LIVINGSTON1 Hugh Duncan Livingston (herein called "the testator") died in 1948 domiciled

More information

CORRS CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE NOVEMBER 2016

CORRS CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE NOVEMBER 2016 CORRS CONSTRUCTION LAW UPDATE NOVEMBER 2016 WWW.CORRS.COM.AU CONTENTS COMMONWEALTH... 4 Crown Melbourne Limited v Cosmopolitan Hotel (Vic) Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 26...4 Keywords: collateral contract; estoppel

More information

THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 11 Orient Journal of Law and Social Sciences Volume IV, tssues, August 2010 THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL By Dr. Mukund Sarada'..', The doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' had its origins in Principles

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between KERRON MOE. And GARY HARPER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between KERRON MOE. And GARY HARPER THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No CV 2012-03569 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between KERRON MOE And Claimant GARY HARPER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PETER A. RAJKUMAR APPEARANCES Mr. St.

More information

TRUST LAW DIFC LAW NO.6 OF Annex A

TRUST LAW DIFC LAW NO.6 OF Annex A DIFC LAW NO.6 OF 2017 Annex A CONTENTS PART 1: GENERAL... 6 1. Title and repeal... 6 2. Legislative authority... 6 3. Application of the Law... 6 4. Scope of the Law... 6 5. Date of Enactment... 6 6. Commencement...

More information

COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CA NUMBER: 11066/15 NUMBER: BD2801/14 Appellant: Respondent: MICHAEL FRANCIS SANDERSON (First Defendant) AND PHYLLIS KAREN SANDERSON (Second Defendant) AND BANK

More information

A Question of Law: Practice and Procedure in Courts and Tribunals in New South Wales

A Question of Law: Practice and Procedure in Courts and Tribunals in New South Wales A Question of Law: Practice and Procedure in Courts and Tribunals in New South Wales A paper delivered by Mark Robinson SC to a LegalWise Government Lawyers Conference held in Sydney on 1 June 2012 I am

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session NORMA JEAN FORD GRIFFIN v. DONNA LESTER and the UNKNOWN HEIRS of ARTHUR JEAN HENDERSON (DECEASED) An Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

JOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28

JOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28 CASENOTE: JOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28 by Simon Rice Introduction In Joan Monica Maloney v The Queen ( Maloney ), the High Court decided that laws that prohibit an Indigenous person from

More information

PENALTIES AND RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE OF JOINT VENTURE INTERESTS

PENALTIES AND RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE OF JOINT VENTURE INTERESTS Penalties and Relief Against Forfeiture of Joint Venture Interests 219 PENALTIES AND RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE OF JOINT VENTURE INTERESTS Michael Lishman A common provision in an exploration joint venture

More information

Circuit Court, D. Maryland. April Term, 1885.

Circuit Court, D. Maryland. April Term, 1885. 224 v.26f, no.4-15 THURBER AND ANOTHER V. OLIVER. 1 Circuit Court, D. Maryland. April Term, 1885. 1. COLLATERAL SECURITY STORAGE RECEIPT BY PERSON NOT A WAREHOUSEMAN VALIDITY ACT OF LEGISLATURE MARYLAND

More information

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER. and LAMBERT JAMES-SOOMER SAINT LUCIA IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV 2003/0138 BETWEEN (1) MICHELE STEPHENSON (2) MAHALIA MARS (Qua Administratrices of the Estate of ANTHONY

More information

Master Asset Finance Agreement

Master Asset Finance Agreement NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED ABN 12 004 044 937 Contract Number Master Asset Finance Agreement ATTENTION: INTENDING GUARANTORS The guarantor should seek independent legal and financial advice on the

More information

Margin Calls Must Observe Notice Period

Margin Calls Must Observe Notice Period Margin Calls Must Observe Notice Period Introduction In Lam Chi Kin David v Deutsche Bank AG [2010] SGCA 42, the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of margin loans, a common subject of dispute in recent

More information

REMEDIES. Contract Law: a practical guide. Young Lawyers NSW. 4 September Edmund Finnane 1

REMEDIES. Contract Law: a practical guide. Young Lawyers NSW. 4 September Edmund Finnane 1 REMEDIES Contract Law: a practical guide Young Lawyers NSW 4 September 2013 Edmund Finnane 1 PART A DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT The general rule as to damages in contract, is that stated in Robinson

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN CHANDRAGUPTA MAHARAJ MAIANTEE MAHARAJ AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN CHANDRAGUPTA MAHARAJ MAIANTEE MAHARAJ AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. Cv.2011-00647 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN CHANDRAGUPTA MAHARAJ MAIANTEE MAHARAJ AND Claimants NIGEL STELLA JOSEPH GENTLE Defendants BEFORE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. San Fernando BETWEEN MCLEOD RICHARDSON AND AVRIL GEORGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. San Fernando BETWEEN MCLEOD RICHARDSON AND AVRIL GEORGE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando Claim No. CV2017-01755 BETWEEN MCLEOD RICHARDSON Claimant AND AVRIL GEORGE Defendant Before Her Honour Madam Justice Eleanor J.

More information

Real Property Limitations Act

Real Property Limitations Act Real Property Limitations Act CHAPTER 258 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 as amended by 1993, c. 27; 1995-96, c. 13, s. 82; 2001, c. 6, s. 115; 2003 (2nd Sess.), c. 1, s. 27; 2005, c. 43, s. 74; 2007, c.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh AND Ravi Dass AND Carl Mohammed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh AND Ravi Dass AND Carl Mohammed THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2012-00434 BETWEEN Evelyn Phulmatti Ranjitsingh Joseph Claimant AND Indra Singh AND Svetlana Dass AND Lenny Ranjitsingh

More information

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NSW Enabling) Act 2013 No 104

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NSW Enabling) Act 2013 No 104 New South Wales National Disability Insurance Scheme (NSW Enabling) Act 2013 No 104 Contents Page Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Preliminary 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Objects 2 4 Interpretation key definitions

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL NICHOLAS LANSIQUOT. and 1. IGNATIUS LEON 2. PAULA MARIUS 3. MERISE LANSIQUOT 4. JOAN FELIX 5. LLYN LANSIQUOT 6.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL NICHOLAS LANSIQUOT. and 1. IGNATIUS LEON 2. PAULA MARIUS 3. MERISE LANSIQUOT 4. JOAN FELIX 5. LLYN LANSIQUOT 6. SAINT LUCIA CIVIL APPEAL NO.29 OF 2005 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL NICHOLAS LANSIQUOT and Appellant 1. IGNATIUS LEON 2. PAULA MARIUS 3. MERISE LANSIQUOT 4. JOAN FELIX 5. LLYN LANSIQUOT 6. JOHN LANSIQUOT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gemini Nominees Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd ATF The Keith Batt Family Trust [2007] QSC 20 PARTIES: GEMINI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 011 020 536) (plaintiff)

More information

THE DECISION OF the Court of Appeal in Jennings v Rice1 signalled

THE DECISION OF the Court of Appeal in Jennings v Rice1 signalled 16 The Role of Expectation in the Determination of Proprietary Estoppel Remedies JOHN MEE * I. INTRODUCTION THE DECISION OF the Court of Appeal in Jennings v Rice1 signalled an important shift in the approach

More information

TRUST LAW DIFC LAW No. 11 of Consolidated Version (May 2010)

TRUST LAW DIFC LAW No. 11 of Consolidated Version (May 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TRUST LAW DIFC LAW No. 11 of 2005 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

The clause (ACAS Form COT-3) provided:

The clause (ACAS Form COT-3) provided: THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS The leading case is Bank of Credit and Commerce International SAI v Ali [2001] UKHL 8; [2002] 1 AC 251. It was also an extreme case where the majority of the House

More information

Part 1 Interpretation

Part 1 Interpretation The New Limitation Act Explained Page 1 Part 1 Interpretation This Part defines terms and provides some general principles of interpretation for the new Limitation Act ( new Act ). Division 1 Definitions

More information

Caravan Sites (Security of Tenure)

Caravan Sites (Security of Tenure) Caravan Sites (Security of Tenure) CONTENTS Secure tenancy 1 Secure tenancy 2 Termination of secure tenancy: court order 3 Proceedings for possession: anti-social behaviour Introductory tenancy 4 Introductory

More information

Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, July 2006

Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, July 2006 Protecting Legitimate Expectations and Estoppel in English Law Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, July 2006 John Cartwright* Readers are reminded that this work is protected

More information

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Definitions PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 OFFENCES

More information

CHAPTER 60:02 TITLE TO LAND (PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

CHAPTER 60:02 TITLE TO LAND (PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation) 3 CHAPTER 60:02 TITLE TO LAND (PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Title by prescription to

More information

BELIZE LIMITATION ACT CHAPTER 170 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000

BELIZE LIMITATION ACT CHAPTER 170 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 BELIZE LIMITATION ACT CHAPTER 170 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of the

More information

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983 WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE MOBILE HOMES ACT 1983 IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ THIS STATEMENT CAREFULLY AND KEEP IT IN A SAFE PLACE. IT SETS OUT THE TERMS ON WHICH YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO KEEP YOUR MOBILE HOME

More information

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY ANU COLLEGE OF LAW Social Science Research Network Legal Scholarship Network ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 09-30 Thomas Alured Faunce and Esme Shirlow Australian

More information

BEFORE THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIVISION DOCKET NO. A DIA NO. 08DOCBL079

BEFORE THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIVISION DOCKET NO. A DIA NO. 08DOCBL079 BEFORE THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DIVISION IN RE: Mr. United, Inc. d/b/a Liquor & Tobacco Point 1545 First Avenue SE Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406 DOCKET NO. A-2008-00019 DIA NO. 08DOCBL079

More information

Cuthbert v Gair (t/a The Bowes Manor Equestrian Centre) [2008] APP.L.R. 09/03

Cuthbert v Gair (t/a The Bowes Manor Equestrian Centre) [2008] APP.L.R. 09/03 JUDGMENT : Master Haworth : Costs Court. 3 rd September 2008 1. This is an appeal pursuant to CPR Rule 47.20 from a decision of Costs Officer Martin in relation to a detailed assessment which took place

More information

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS [2014] CCJ 16 (AJ) IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS CCJ Application No BBCV2014/002 BB Civil Appeal No 10 of 2006 BETWEEN SYSTEM SALES

More information

Developments In Building And Construction Law

Developments In Building And Construction Law Page 1 of 6 Print Page Close Window Developments In Building And Construction Law Developments In Building And Construction Law Robert McDougall * 30th Anniversary Conference of Institute of Arbitrators

More information

Number 15 of Sport Ireland Act 2015

Number 15 of Sport Ireland Act 2015 Number 15 of 2015 Sport Ireland Act 2015 Number 15 of 2015 SPORT IRELAND ACT 2015 CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Expenses of Minister

More information

Conditions of Offer For the Provision of an Offer to Supply Goods

Conditions of Offer For the Provision of an Offer to Supply Goods Conditions of Offer For the Provision of an Offer to Supply Goods Contents 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION... 3 2. COMPLIANCE WITH THE INVITATION... 5 3. OFFER VALIDITY PERIOD... 5 4. FORMAT OF OFFER...

More information

No THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT UHURU KENYATTA. President

No THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT UHURU KENYATTA. President No. 2017 THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT UHURU KENYATTA I assent President, 2017 AN ACT of Parliament to facilitate the use of movable property as collateral for credit facilities, to

More information

KENYA GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT

KENYA GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT SPECIAL ISSUE Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 72 (Acts No. 13) REPUBLIC OF KENYA KENYA GAZETTE SUPPLEMENT ACTS, 2017 NAIROBI, 12th May, 2017 CONTENT Act PAGE The Movable Property Security Rights Act, 2017...245

More information

CASE NOTE ON ASIC V FORTESCUE METALS GROUP AND FORREST: MISLEADING CONDUCT, CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE AND DIRECTORS DUTIES

CASE NOTE ON ASIC V FORTESCUE METALS GROUP AND FORREST: MISLEADING CONDUCT, CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE AND DIRECTORS DUTIES CASE NOTE ON ASIC V FORTESCUE METALS GROUP AND FORREST: MISLEADING CONDUCT, CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE AND DIRECTORS DUTIES Chloe Donjerkovich* I Introduction The Full Court of the Federal Court s unanimous

More information

Contracts Seminar 13 Illegality & Remedies Dr William Higgs Adjunct Fellow, School of Law, Western Sydney University Barrister-at-law Elizabeth

Contracts Seminar 13 Illegality & Remedies Dr William Higgs Adjunct Fellow, School of Law, Western Sydney University Barrister-at-law Elizabeth Contracts Seminar 13 Illegality & Remedies Dr William Higgs Adjunct Fellow, School of Law, Western Sydney University Barrister-at-law Elizabeth Street Chambers, Sydney, Australia Vitiating factors A quick

More information

Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) [2014] HCA 23

Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) [2014] HCA 23 Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) [2014] HCA 23 [10.117A] The enactment of s 32B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) and the addition of Sch 1AA to the regulations enabled the continuation

More information

The following provisions are intended for inclusion in instruments of the above class:

The following provisions are intended for inclusion in instruments of the above class: Form of registrable memorandum Section 155A, Land Transfer Act 1952 BARCODE Class of instrument in which provisions are intended to be included MORTGAGE Person executing Memorandum: BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011-04424 BETWEEN VERNA FOSTER Claimant AND RENEE AYANA BAIN Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim Appearances:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CASE NO. 430 OF 2000 JENNIFER SWEEN - Claimant a.k.a Jennifer Harper acting by her Attorney on record Cynthia Sween. VS NICHOLA CONNOR - Defendant

More information

SUBMISSION TO THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY- GENERAL ON PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDERS

SUBMISSION TO THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY- GENERAL ON PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDERS SUBMISSION TO THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY- GENERAL ON PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDERS Lucy McKernan & Gregor Husper Co-Managers, Public Interest Scheme Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) Inc 17/461 Bourke

More information

New South Wales Court of Appeal

New South Wales Court of Appeal BCS Strata Management Pty. Limited t/as Body Corporate Services v. Robinson & Anor.... Page 1 of 10 New South Wales Court of Appeal [Index] [Search] [Download] [Help] BCS Strata Management Pty. Limited

More information

J U L Y V O L U M E 6 3

J U L Y V O L U M E 6 3 LEGAL MATTERS J U L Y 2 0 1 6 V O L U M E 6 3 For a contract to be considered valid and binding in South Africa, certain requirements must be met, inter alia, there must be consensus ad idem between the

More information

Chapter XIX EQUITY CONDENSED OUTLINE

Chapter XIX EQUITY CONDENSED OUTLINE Chapter XIX EQUITY CONDENSED OUTLINE I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF EQUITY B. Equitable Maxims and Other General Doctrines. C. Marshaling Assets. II. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS B. When Specific Performance

More information

Contracts Final Exam Notes Formation of a contract What is a contract MUST Offer REASONABLE PERSON Acceptance

Contracts Final Exam Notes Formation of a contract What is a contract MUST Offer REASONABLE PERSON Acceptance Contracts Final Exam Notes Formation of a contract What is a contract - Binding promise between two or more parties, reliant upon several important factors - Offer - Acceptance - Consideration - Certainty

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 2001 WI App 16 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 00-1464 Complete Title of Case: Petition for review filed JANET M. KLAWITTER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. ELMER H. KLAWITTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REL:06/05/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, Successor by Merger to Bergen Commercial Bank, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. v. Plaintiff-Respondent,

More information

VA Form (Home Loan) Revised October 1983, Use Optional. Section 1810, Title 38, U.S.C. Acceptable to Federal National Mortgage Association

VA Form (Home Loan) Revised October 1983, Use Optional. Section 1810, Title 38, U.S.C. Acceptable to Federal National Mortgage Association LAND COURT SYSTEM REGULAR SYSTEM AFTER RECORDATION, RETURN TO: BY: MAIL PICKUP VA Form 26-6350 (Home Loan) Revised October 1983, Use Optional. Section 1810, Title 38, U.S.C. Acceptable to Federal National

More information

GREG LAUGHTON SC. Mobile: +(61)(0) Table of Contents

GREG LAUGHTON SC. Mobile: +(61)(0) Table of Contents GREG LAUGHTON SC SYDNEY Selborne Chambers 174 Phillip Street, Sydney 2000 DX 394 Sydney Telephone: + 61(0) 29233 8796 Facsimile: + 61(0)29221 4196 Email: glaughton@selbornechambers.com.au LONDON 1 Gray

More information

GOOD FAITH: ENFORCEMENT IN AUSTRALIA

GOOD FAITH: ENFORCEMENT IN AUSTRALIA GOOD FAITH: ENFORCEMENT IN AUSTRALIA Alicia Hill, McInnes Wilson Lawyers, Brisbane, Australia This paper examines a series of recent decisions from a number of Australian jurisdictions where the courts

More information

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Koontz, S.J.

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. SYNCHRONIZED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. v. Record No. 131569 October

More information

LAWS 1072: CONTRACTS

LAWS 1072: CONTRACTS LAWS1072- CONTRACTS 2- EXAM NOTES: LAWS 1072: CONTRACTS 2 Semester 2 2010 1 LAWS1072- CONTRACTS 2- EXAM NOTES: 2 LAWS1072- CONTRACTS 2- EXAM NOTES: CONSTRUCTION: 1. Express terms: a. Statements made during

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. In Case No , Appeal of Town of Goshen, the court on August 19, 2015, issued the following order:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. In Case No , Appeal of Town of Goshen, the court on August 19, 2015, issued the following order: THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0656, Appeal of Town of Goshen, the court on August 19, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the parties briefs and oral arguments

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. 2000: January 10 and 11 JUDGMENT. [2] The Plaintiff resides on the land which is involved in this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND. 2000: January 10 and 11 JUDGMENT. [2] The Plaintiff resides on the land which is involved in this case. ..... SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIVIL SUIT NO. 29 OF 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: FITZROY MAPP AND CASSANDRA MAPP PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Appearances: Miss Zhinga Horne for the Plaintiff

More information

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda

In The Supreme Court of Bermuda [2018] SC (Bda) 7 Civ ( 27 December 2017) In The Supreme Court of Bermuda CIVIL JURISDICTION 2017: No 466 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1981 -and- IN THE MATTER OF N-REN INTERNATIONAL LTD -and- IN

More information

The Implied Duty of Good Faith in Australian Contract Law

The Implied Duty of Good Faith in Australian Contract Law Page 1 of 9 Print Page Close Window The Implied Duty of Good Faith in Australian Contract Law THE IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITH IN AUSTRALIAN CONTRACT LAW by ROBERT McDOUGALL 1 Introduction Although discussion

More information

THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD*

THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* Introduction On 12 October 1994 the High Court handed down its judgments in the cases of Theophanous v Herald & Weekly

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 10, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 10, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 10, 2005 Session PATSY C. CATE v. JAMES DANIEL THOMAS A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Madison County No. 58062 The Honorable Steven Stafford,

More information

CASE NOTES AND COMMENT

CASE NOTES AND COMMENT CASE NOTES AND COMMENT THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN TOLL (FCGT) PTY LTD V ALPHAPHARM PTY LTD & ORS 1 Guy Cumes * INTRODUCTION The question as to whether and how the conduct of the parties constitutes a contract

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION v. THE COMMONWEALTH [1975] HCA 33; (1975) 132 CLR 582 High Court High Court of Australia Mason J.(1) CATCHWORDS High Court - Practice - Action

More information

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE CARAVANS ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2011

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE CARAVANS ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2011 WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE CARAVANS ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2011 2 WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER THE CARAVANS ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2011 REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO A PROPOSED OCCUPIER OF A PITCH IMPORTANT PLEASE

More information

Section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015: leaky apartment blocks and consequential costs. Tom Davie Barrister

Section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015: leaky apartment blocks and consequential costs. Tom Davie Barrister Section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015: leaky apartment blocks and consequential costs Tom Davie Barrister Claims for consequential costs The facts of Shum v Owners Corporation SP30621 [2017]

More information

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited Plaintiff; and The State of Victoria and Another Defendants. 211 CLR 1, [2002] HCA 27) [2002] HCA 27

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited Plaintiff; and The State of Victoria and Another Defendants. 211 CLR 1, [2002] HCA 27) [2002] HCA 27 Constitutional Law - State Parliament - Powers - Legislative scheme for representative actions - Whether beyond territorial competence of State Parliament - Whether invalid conferral of nonjudicial power

More information