2026/00134707
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Amended Notice of Appeal (PDF, 142.4 KB) | |
| 19/6/2026 | Applicant | Chronology (PDF, 203.0 KB) |
| 19/6/2026 | Applicant | Submissions (PDF, 267.3 KB) |
| 3/7/2026 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 369.3 KB) |
| 10/7/2026 | Applicant | Reply (PDF, 212.8 KB) |
| 13/7/2026 | Applicant | Certification for Publication (PDF, 47.4 KB) |
| 13/7/2026 | Respondent | Certification for Publication (1st Respondent) (PDF, 78.8 KB); Certification for Publication (2nd - 5th Respondents) (PDF, 101.7 KB) |
PROCEDURE – following the death of her father, the applicant commenced proceedings against his estate alleging, amongst other things, “conventionally pleaded” estoppel (CP estoppel) – on 6 March 2026, the primary judge relevantly struck out the applicant’s CP estoppel claim on the basis that the pleading of the claim was “defective”. The primary judge granted the applicant leave to replead the CP estoppel claim – by notice of motion, the applicant sought leave to file a second further amended statement of claim (SFASOC) in respect of her CP estoppel claim – on 20 May 2026, the primary judge found that the manner in which the applicant had pleaded detrimental reliance, and one of the promises upon which she relied, were defective, as were her prayers for relief. The primary judge accordingly refused the applicant leave to file the SFASOC, without any further opportunity to replead – whether the primary judge erred in failing to grant the applicant leave to file the SFASOC.
Last updated: