From: Nuncio D'Angelo <nuncio.dangelo@nortonrosefulbright.com>
To: Henry Cooney <henry.cooney@uwa.edu.au>
Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>
obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 01/03/2023 06:43:47 UTC
Subject: RE: Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel Questions
Attachments: Lawrence, Re Ozifin (in liq) v AGM (in liq).pdf

Here’s a [the] latest Australian case.

 

I’m not sure I agree with everything in the analysis

 

Nuncio D'Angelo | Partner
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Level 5, 60 Martin Place, Sydney, Australia
Tel +61 2 9330 8526 | Mob +61 407 247 991 | Fax +61 2 9330 8111
nuncio.dangelo@nortonrosefulbright.com

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT

Law around the world
nortonrosefulbright.com

From: Henry Cooney <henry.cooney@uwa.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 March 2023 5:29 PM
To: Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel Questions

 

[External Email – Use Caution]

 

Gerard,

 

An excellent bet for an Australian focus is Bant and Bryan, Principles of Proprietary Restitution (2013), in particular chapters 5, 10, 11 and 12. Michael Bryan and Elise have also separately written relevant articles on the remedial constructive trust and discretionary factors relevant to proprietary relief more generally. 



It is far harder to recommend good cases, mainly because, so far as I can tell, it is difficult to reconcile most of them against one another. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Henry 

 

Henry Cooney

Adjunct Research Fellow

UWA Law School  •  Perth WA 6009 Australia

+61 416 422 770 • e henry.cooney@uwa.edu.au 

View my research at https://ssrn.com/author=4405026 

 

 

 


From: Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:08 pm
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Constructive Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel Questions

 

Dear all

I'd be really grateful for recommendations regarding literature (and
references to leading non-UK cases) regarding remedial constructive
trusts. (Self-promotion gratefully received.) I'm trying to understand
the discretionary factors that motivate those Courts that do recognise
remedial constructive trusts to impose them in a given case more
fully than I do (doubtless due to my own limitations).

Separately, one question regarding proprietary estoppel that I have
never understood is this:

In what circumstances ought the Court to make an order regarding
specific property (say an order that a  specific farm (the cases do
seem to be disproportionately about farms for whatever reason), a
house etc. or an interest therein be
transferred) as opposed to an order for financial compensation to
satisfy the equity created by reason of such a proprietary estoppel?

Suppose by my conduct I have acted so as to make it inequitable for me
to deprive another of an interest in property promised to them (the
classic case of "some day all this will be yours my son and until
then, please work for me for next to nothing to make it better".) In
what circumstances ought I to be obliged to transfer an interest in
specific property and in what circumstances ought I to be able to say
I will make good the equity by paying money (which will enable the
recippient to buy another farm, property, piece of art, whatever the
case concerns.)

Kind regards

Ger

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person.  Norton Rose Fulbright Australia and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor all email communications through their networks.

Norton Rose Fulbright Australia is a law firm as defined in the legal profession legislation of the Australian states and territory in which it practises.

Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc and Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP are separate legal entities and all of them are members of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the members but does not itself provide legal services to clients. Details of each entity, with certain regulatory information, are available at nortonrosefulbright.com.

We collect personal information in the course of providing our legal services. For further information please see our Australian privacy collection notice available on our website.