Explore this Free Assignment Sample on equity rights and proprietary estoppel to see how courts apply equitable remedies in family property disputes. Get expert Assignment Help Australia for Equity and Trusts coursework from experienced legal professionals.
Proprietary Estoppel and Remedies in Parent Promise Cases
MAIN BODY
Issue
The current case includes Craig and Julie who are children of Mr and Mrs Ross and are running a country hotel named ‘The Fat Duck’ which was attached to a small vineyard. Julie assisted her parents in running the hotel and Craig attended agricultural college and after that worked at the vineyard with less pay. Craig reinvested the profit in the vineyard only as his parents promised to give the vineyard to him[1]. For this, he built a small house as well and developed another valuable asset as well along with his signature ‘Cold Duck’. But soon after the death of Mr Ross, Mrs Ross requested Craig to vacate the vineyard. With a solicitor, he replied that his father promised to give him the vineyard. In response to this, she made an instrument in writing which included different clauses. After Ross died Craig notices that Anna who is an ex-employee of the vineyard started selling wine named Wild Duck similar to Cold Duck which is wrong as Cold Duck was his drink.
Rule
Referring to Nelson v Nelson [1995] it was analysed that when the parent states that the property will be provided to Craig then they have to provide it. In the clause, it was mentioned that the vineyard is given to Julie but this is wrong as Mr Ross stated to give the vineyard to Craig[2]. Also, in the current case, Craig has an equitable right to the vineyard as both are children and Mr Ross has stated to give the vineyard to Craig and for this, he can claim the equitable right.
Application
With the application of the flexibility of the equitable remedies, it is clear that according to common law, the equitable rights can be accessed and according to it, Craig can claim the right on the vineyard. Also, according to S37 (1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, it was analysed that the court may appoint an injunction as convenient for the party to do. Also, against Anna, Craig can take legal action as the drink was made by him and she does not have the right to sell the same drink in other names[3]. Thus, for this, he can try to patent the drink so that no other person can use it. Moreover, it is also necessary for Craig to get in direct conversation with Anna and ask her why she is selling a similar kind of drink.
Conclusion
In the end, it is concluded that Craig is responsible for the equitable right in comparison to Julie as well. He also has an equitable right to the vineyard and his father has asked to give him the vineyard and for this, he was investing all his money back into the vineyard only[4]. Moreover, he can also claim action and sue Anna for using a similar drink which was made by him.
