In Haschka v Johnson [2026] NSWSC, Sarah Short appeared unled for the successful plaintiff/cross-defendant.
The proceedings concerned a dispute as to the nature of the right to reside at a property granted by an elderly mother to her son, and whether the son had an equitable right to remain at that property by way of a proprietary estoppel and/or constructive trust. On his cross-claim, the son also claimed a promissory estoppel for funds to purchase alternative accommodation to be met out of the sale of the subject property and that the mother was liable in unjust enrichment for the care and living expenses provided to her by him.
The Supreme Court (Griffiths AJ) upheld the mother’s claim finding that the right was a tenancy at will which had been validly terminated. The son’s estoppel claims failed as he was not able to establish any “clear or unequivocal” promises made by his mother, nor any detrimental reliance upon the alleged promises. Similarly, the mother succeeded in defending the constructive trust claims as there was no representation or common intention for the son to be granted any interest in land. His Honour also held that the son’s unjust enrichment claim failed as he had not established the care and living expenses provided, had himself received a benefit by way of Centrelink carer’s payments, and that the care was the kind of the assistance which one would expect an adult son to provide to an elderly mother.
The judgment provides a useful summary on the principles of equitable and promissory estoppel, and constructive trusts.
The decision can be found here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1a1be747b4e58626df09e73d