ESTOPPEL — Estoppel by encouragement — estoppel by acquiescence — Farming properties held through a company — Company incorporated and initial management shares held by plaintiff’s father and paternal grandfather – Plaintiff claims his father gave encouragement for plaintiff and his wife to move onto one of the properties and subsequently also farm the other property and made promises to leave the shares in the company (or the properties) to the plaintiff upon his father’s death — Father makes various Wills leaving shares to plaintiff but 5 days prior to his death makes a Will leaving his estate to his wife (plaintiff’s mother) — Plaintiff claims father estopped from doing so and shares held on trust for plaintiff — Mother claims plaintiff did not abide by terms of promises by failing to make payments to father and failing to continue farms as “working farms” — Estoppel case made out.
ESTOPPEL — Consideration of alleged conditionality of promises — Whether promises of testamentary inheritance of shares conditional upon plaintiff(s) making payments for benefit of the deceased albeit payments made to corporate entity — Whether promises conditional upon plaintiff(s) continuing to work farms for the remainder of deceased’s life — Effect of deceased’s post promise intervention suggesting alternative use of property for members of plaintiffs’ family.
ESTOPPEL — Estoppel by encouragement — estoppel by acquiescence — Requirements — deceased aware of intended reliance — Life-changing decisions with practically irreversible consequences of a profoundly personal nature beyond the measure of money — Application of principle in Donis v Donis (2017) 19 VR 577; [2007] VSCA 89 — Substantial detrimental reliance established.
TRUSTS — Time from which a constructive trust arises — Time of the conduct which gives rise to the trust occurred is generally when a plaintiff acts in reliance on the promise or expectation such that it later becomes unconscionable for the promisor to resile.
EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Defences to specific performance — Unclean hands — consideration of onus of proof — Consideration of operation of maxim used as a defence against a party seeking equitable relief based on estoppel.
PAYMENT — Consideration of payment obligation being waived or not pressed
LOANS — Onus of proof — Absence of evidence bearing directly on gifting of monies — Whether loan can be inferred from book entries without movement of money — Requirement for underlying agreement — Consideration of Manzi v Smith (1975) 132 CLR 671; [1975] HCA 35 — Whether inference of agreement open — Whether within the scope of authority of accountant to characterise payment as a loan and prepare company financial statements and tax returns accordingly.
GIFTS — Absence of evidence bearing directly on gifting of monies — Assessment of evidence — Gift established — In any event arguably a presumption of advancement arises.
PRACTICE — Pleadings — Pleading of estoppel claims — Test of pleading is not greatest fidelity to facts but materiality of facts — Pleading events or contingencies need not be stated if they are not alleged to affect a plaintiff’s right or title or claim to relief.
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Subpoenas — Privacy and access issues — If parties have concerns regarding privacy but do not have technical capacity to address that they should actively seek the assistance of their legal representatives or other appropriate professionals who can assist them to resolve production issues in a way that fairly enables production of relevant material but otherwise preserves the integrity of matters that are properly the subject of privacy concerns.
EVIDENCE — Photographic evidence — Admissibility — No requirement to prove who took the photograph — Photograph admissible where a witness is able to state the photograph accurately depicts what is shown of the relevant scene, item or facts — Nonetheless distortion of appearance may be ground to make a photograph inadmissible or use unfair.
EVIDENCE — Self-incrimination — Informing witnesses of rights — Obligation under s 132 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) regarding objections pursuant to s 132 Evidence Act to answering questions.
DECLARATORY RELIEF — Conditioning relief on plaintiffs not being permitted to enforce claim against the estate in respect of a “director’s loan” recorded in company accounts — Further nunc pro tunc declaration sought — Declined on the facts.
TAXES AND DUTIES — NSW company shares — whether dutiable property — Marketable securities not dutiable property — Court otherwise will not pre-empt what duty or tax liability may flow from findings regarding loan and gift transactions.
ANCILLARY RELIEF — Order sought empowering Registrar to execute transfer documents — Court may condition orders with an “alternative execution” provision if circumstances demonstrate probable futility of signing request — Probable futility not demonstrated.
ORDERS — Application for referral of matters to Regulator — Basis on which referral is made discussed — Whether appropriate in the circumstances — Papers not referred.
Dr Christos Mantziaris successfully represented the Plaintiffs.
Reasons for the decision can be found here.
