Sidhu v Van Dyke
This High Court of Australia decision revolved around a building, Oaks Cottage, situated on a 32 hectare rural property in New South Wales known as Burra Station. The appellant, Mr Sidhu, lived in the main homestead on Burra Station. The respondent, Ms Van Dyke, and her husband lived in Oaks Cottage, approximately 100 metres away. Ms Van Dyke and her husband paid rent to Mr Sidhu’s wife in respect of Oaks Cottage. Both the main homestead and Oaks Cottage were located on an unsubdivided block of land owned by Mr Sidhu and his wife as joint tenants.
Towards the end of 1997, Mr Sidhu and Ms Van Dyke commenced a physical relationship. In January 1998, Mr Sidhu promised Oaks Cottage to Ms Van Dyke upon the subdivision of Burra Station. …show more content…
On 31 July 2006, Ms Van Dyke and Mr Sidhu’s relationship came to an end and Ms Van Dyke left Burra …show more content…
It found further that Ms Van Dyke made out a ‘compelling’ case of detrimental reliance. The Court reasoned that it was unlikely, as ‘a matter of the probabilities of human behaviour’ that Ms Van Dyke would have devoted herself to the appellant and exerted herself over the period of eight and a half years were it not for Mr Sidhu’s promises. Moreover, it did not matter whether or not the promises were the sole motivation of Ms Van Dyke in undertaking the detrimental action. They needed only be a contributing cause (which, according to Gageler J, also required establishing that the belief Ms Van Dyke had regarding Oaks Cottage made a difference to whether or not she took action. Gageler J determined that Ms Van Dyke met this requirement) and they were indeed found to be
This High Court of Australia decision revolved around a building, Oaks Cottage, situated on a 32 hectare rural property in New South Wales known as Burra Station. The appellant, Mr Sidhu, lived in the main homestead on Burra Station. The respondent, Ms Van Dyke, and her husband lived in Oaks Cottage, approximately 100 metres away. Ms Van Dyke and her husband paid rent to Mr Sidhu’s wife in respect of Oaks Cottage. Both the main homestead and Oaks Cottage were located on an unsubdivided block of land owned by Mr Sidhu and his wife as joint tenants.
Towards the end of 1997, Mr Sidhu and Ms Van Dyke commenced a physical relationship. In January 1998, Mr Sidhu promised Oaks Cottage to Ms Van Dyke upon the subdivision of Burra Station. …show more content…
On 31 July 2006, Ms Van Dyke and Mr Sidhu’s relationship came to an end and Ms Van Dyke left Burra …show more content…
It found further that Ms Van Dyke made out a ‘compelling’ case of detrimental reliance. The Court reasoned that it was unlikely, as ‘a matter of the probabilities of human behaviour’ that Ms Van Dyke would have devoted herself to the appellant and exerted herself over the period of eight and a half years were it not for Mr Sidhu’s promises. Moreover, it did not matter whether or not the promises were the sole motivation of Ms Van Dyke in undertaking the detrimental action. They needed only be a contributing cause (which, according to Gageler J, also required establishing that the belief Ms Van Dyke had regarding Oaks Cottage made a difference to whether or not she took action. Gageler J determined that Ms Van Dyke met this requirement) and they were indeed found to be