Catchwords:
SUCCESSION — Testamentary promise — Deceased who was battling cancer with a prognosis of 3-6 months to live approaches sister for care — Plaintiff (sister) claims that the deceased promised her half of her estate if she looked after her — In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff moved from Ocean Grove in Victoria, first isolating in Sydney for 2 weeks, and then travelled to Port Macquarie where she lived with and took care of the deceased for some 10 months, returning to Victoria for a period of 6 weeks — There was no written contract or document reflecting the alleged promise and there was limited contemporaneous documentary evidence generally — Deceased’s Will does not give effect to the purported contract but rather only gives by way of provision to the plaintiff items of personal effect, $20,000 and a motor vehicle, with the residue of the estate being divided between a cancer trust and a wildlife charity — Defendant, who is the executrix and a friend of the deceased, disputes the alleged promise was made or, if made, that it is enforceable — Defendant’s counsel contends that the plaintiff and witnesses in her case (her brother and her husband) have each reconstructed memories of material evidence — Plaintiff’s counsel postulates a case that the deceased harboured negative feelings for the plaintiff for leaving the deceased to look after their sick mother on her own, which led her to plot her revenge against the plaintiff in the form of not honouring the alleged promise CONTRACTS — Testamentary contract — Whether the deceased promised the plaintiff half of her estate if she looked after her — Deceased updated her Will one week after the alleged promise conversation but before the plaintiff arrived in Port Macquarie and did not make the alleged promised provision — Defendant’s witnesses assert the deceased never told them she was giving the plaintiff half of her estate — Submission by the defendant that these factors are inconsistent with the alleged promise conversation not accepted — Found that the alleged promise conversation occurred as asserted by the plaintiff and foreshadowed by the evidence of the deceased’s and plaintiff’s brother that the deceased mentioned her plan to offer the plaintiff the alleged promise — Found that the promise conversation constitutes an agreement — Submission that the terms of the agreement are not certain rejected — Submission that there was no real consideration rejected — Submission that there was no intention to create legal relations rejected — Held that there was a valid testamentary contract between the deceased and the plaintiff which was breached by the deceased ESTOPPEL — Equitable estoppel — Found that there was a clear and unequivocal promise — Discussion of whether an existing or future legal relationship needs to be assumed — Held that no assumption is required by the plaintiff — Found, in any event, that the plaintiff assumed there was an oral contract — Whether the plaintiff acted reasonably in reliance on the promise — Submission that the plaintiff’s reliance was artificial and unrealistic rejected — Whether the deceased knew or intended that the plaintiff would act in reliance on the promise — Found that the deceased knew or intended for the plaintiff to act in reliance on the promise — Whether the plaintiff’s reliance on the promise was to her detriment — Discussion of financial and non-financial detriment — Submission that the plaintiff acted in reliance to her detriment accepted — Whether the deceased acted unconscionably in not honouring the promise — Unpersuaded that the minimum equity is to enforce the promise according to its terms — Held that equitable estoppel is not made out RESTITUTION — Common counts — Claim for money had and received — Whether the plaintiff’s withdrawal of sums totalling $81,799 during the last days of the deceased’s life and after the deceased’s death were authorised by the deceased — Found that the payments were authorised in a conversation between the deceased and the plaintiff — Held there is no obligation for the plaintiff to pay the sums back into the estate EVIDENCE — Unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence — Submission that evidence which is unchallenged and uncontradicted must be accepted or acted upon — Discussion of authorities — Held there is no general rule that such evidence must be accepted EVIDENCE — Rule in Browne v Dunn — Alleged non-compliance with rule — Held no breach of the rule