← All Authorities
Australia proprietary estoppel

Sidhu v Van Dyke

(2014) 251 CLR 505
JurisdictionAustralia
CourtHigh Court of Australia
Year2014
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Proprietary estoppel requires reliance and detriment, and relief must be proportionate to avoid unconscionability on the facts.

Key Principle

estoppel; reliance and detriment; proportionality of relief to avoid unconscionability

Area of Law

contract

Related Cases

Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560

On termination of a building contract, a builder may recover reasonable value of work done in restitution, subject to the contract price as a ceiling where work was performed under a valid contract.

Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525

Bank late payment fees are not penalties where they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss or protect a legitimate interest of the stipulating party.

Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2016) 260 CLR 85

High Court of Australia examined the principles governing rectification of written contracts for common intention and unilateral mistake in equity.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Sidhu v Van Dyke and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Sidhu v Van Dyke