My four step approach to coping with separation and divorce

When you have been helping people going through divorce as long as I have, over 29 years (sorry that figure just made me feel old!), then you start to think about how different people recover from the pain of divorce and separation quicker than other people.

Over time, I have distilled this down to four factors. Sure there are others, but I see these four as being vital.

Factor 1: have a support network

I can't emphasise how important this is. If you are going through the pain of separation and divorce, it is vital in my view to have friends and family to whom you can talk and get things off your chest. someone to bounce ideas off. To give you support at those moments when you might otherwise do something silly. Who aren't too judgmental, but have good, calm heads on their shoulders. Support from a support network such as this is vital, and often the most important factor in getting through the pain of divorce and separation in one piece.

Factor 2: see a counsellor

Some of my clients don't get this, but I'll make it clear here: much as I am great at giving advice, I am a lawyer, not a counsellor. Counsellors are trained in the social sciences, and hopefully can listen well, and respond to you in positive ways. When your friends and family have had enough, or more than enough of supporting you through one disaster or another, please oh please get the support of someone who is paid to listen to you and to help you. Someone who will give you trained and dispassionate advice, and will charge you a lot less than a lawyer!

Factor 3: have a positive attitude to life

When the heavens open up, and lighting and thunder abounds, you fell betrayed by your ex, and cannot believe the latest outrage in his Facebook post, or in her solicitor's letter, or in his girlfriend's affidavit, or in his text message, it's easy to get angry. If anger is not dissipated quickly, it accumulates, and festers, and eventually turns into bitterness- driving you into a sour, shrivelled human being, who drives friends and family away (hence no support network except from other bitter people) and can have a devastating impact on your kids. No matter how hard it may seem, and ensuring that you take proper stock of your situation and do not live in a fool's paradise, have a positive attitude to life. You will find that by doing so that you will get through the most trying of circumstances quicker and in better shape than if you remain angry and bitter.

I remember many years ago acting for a female client who came to me under the most desperate circumstances. Police had rescued her from the farm in which she lived with her husband- before he might have killed her.

My client, I'll call her Grace, then went on to Centrelink benefits, lived in an outer suburb with no car, and virtually no public transport, and eventually in the most trying of circumstances managed to get a menial job. On top of everything else, when she split from her husband, Grace was shunned from her church, because she dared to split from her husband- no matter that he had beaten her, and threatened to kill her while armed with a gun.

To get to and from work everyday required gargantuan effort- and on top of that she had the Family Court fight from hell. It was a typical knock down, drag out matter, where Grace's husband tried to use every trick in the book to make sure that Grace did not get a cent. Think Josef Stalin's scorched earth policy and you've got the general idea. Grace after all that did get paid.

In the midst of this fight, I asked Grace how she was going. What I expected to hear was- terrible, awful, everything is bad, I'm the victim, etc, etc. Imagine my surprise when Grace said life could not be better. Why, said I? This doesn't make sense. Grace had a job, and all the feeling of socialising and pride that came from that. She found new fun- including water skiing- not bad for a woman in her 50's. Grace found new friends. Life had turned the corner- she could not have been happier. On top of everything else, Grace's mystery kidney complaint, which could not be cured, but resulted in her hospitalisation, but which doctors attributed to stress, amazingly lifted after she left her husband- and never returned.

Factor 4: get fit

Getting fit for most of us is not hard- it just requires a little time, effort and discipline. Provided you have some walking shoes it can be done for free. It sounds obvious, but exercise for someone going through the pain of separation and divorce is one of the best antidotes:

• feeling fitter and stronger will mean that you have a more positive attitude to life
• while exercising, you can get all those negative thoughts out of your brain, and either be able to reflect or meditate
• while exercising, you will be absorbing more oxygen- again making you feel better
• while exercising, your body will release endorphins- the body's natural pain killers- also giving you that euphoric feeling.

Take care with caveats- Family Court

In Homer's classic tale of the wanderings after Troy, the Odyssey, one of the challenges facing Odysseus was to escape the Sirens. These three singing maidens would sing to seafarers, calling them to their deaths when the seafarers, hearing their beautiful voices, would steer their ships to certain doom on the rocks. Odysseus, wisest of them all, plugged all his sailor's ears and had himself tied to the mast of the ship. He gave strict orders that when he called out to follow the Sirens, his men must ignore him. When the time came, and the Sirens sang out, Odysseus and his men, alone of all the sailors, sailed safely past.

If only this approach had been taken by the wife in a recent case before the Family Court. In the case, called Auricchio and Auricchio, the wife started court proceedings seeking 90% of the property owned by the parties. The husband filed his documents in response, saying that there was little point in the wife seeking certain restraining orders, or injunctions, against property to be sold, because the property had already been sold. The same day as the husband filed his documents, the wife lodged her caveat.

A caveat (which is from Latin and means "beware" or "warning") is a very powerful document. it prevents the registration of any dealings on land with the consent of the person who lodged the caveat. In effect you may be unable to sell, lease or mortgage property. This puts the caveator in a very strong position.

To lodge a caveat you must show that you have a caveatable interest- a specific interest in that land. If you don't then as part of the accountability for lodging such a document, the court can remove the caveat. You can also be liable for interest, costs and damages. Hence- be very, very careful indeed in lodging a caveat without justification.

When the matter finally came before the court, the wife said that she needed more time before the caveat argument could be put, as she needed more disclosure from the husband and his companies. She said the disclosure had been late and deficient.

Justice Forrest, in considering whether or not the caveat should remain, said that there was a three part the test that the caveator had to establish:

• "(i) there is a serious question to be tried which involves showing “a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo”; and
• (ii) it is fairly arguable that the caveator has a caveatable interest in the land, and, if so 
• (iii) the balance of convenience favours the retention of the caveat on the title.”

His Honour stated:

 

33. The adjournment of the application for the removal of the caveat was not made on the basis of the fact that the wife had only been given notice of it on Monday 7 April, two days before the hearing. It was made on the basis that the husband’s disclosure pursuant to Kent J’s orders had been late and deficient, and that the wife thus needed more time to consider the disclosed documents. Mr Looney QC submitted that proper consideration of the disclosed material would better place the wife to be able to present her case as to the balance of convenience favouring the retention of the caveat.
34. Mr North SC made the submission in response that if the wife’s evidence did not disclose an arguable case for the determination of a caveatable interest in the subject property, there was no point to the adjournment that was being sought to more carefully consider the preparation of her case in respect to the balance of convenience argument. I respectfully considered that submission to have merit and considered that if I was not satisfied by the wife’s evidence that she had an arguable case to establish the interest in the land that she claimed in the caveat that there was no point in granting the adjournment just so matters relevant to the balance of convenience could be further considered.
35. I set out in paragraph 18 of these reasons the interest claimed by the wife in the caveat she lodged and the grounds of the claim that she set out in the same caveat. She asserts she owns “an estate in fee simple as beneficial owner” on the basis of an “implied, resulting or constructive trust”. Although the Court was informed that there was a current intention to file in the proceedings in this Court an Amended Application seeking to establish the interest the wife claimed, that had not been done by the time of the hearing, which was just under three weeks from the lodgement of the caveat. Of course, a caveator has 3 months from the lodgement of the caveat to take such a step before the caveat lapses or only 14 days from the date of being served with a notice requiring her to do so by the caveatee.^[5] The caveatee (the Second Respondent) had not served such notice at the time of the hearing and the wife had not yet “asserted” her interest, in the sense of taking a formal step in the proceedings in this Court to establish her interest as claimed.
36. Nevertheless, the onus to satisfy the Court that she had an arguable case for an equitable or beneficial interest in the C Street property was on her and it may have been easier for her to meet that onus had a formal step been taken such as the filing of an Amended Application with an attached pleaded case in the form of a Statement of Claim. That had not happened and the wife was in the position of having to try to meet the onus on the evidence that was before the Court....\

To be able to establish that she had a caveatable interest, the wife asserted that her interest in that land arose by virtue of an implied, resulting or a constructive trust. Unfortunately, the wife had no evidence before the court to say so. His Honour stated of Mr North SC who represented the husband:

51. He submitted, correctly, I was satisfied, that she did not depose to any bases asserting a caveatable interest such as claimed by her. He also submitted, again correctly, I was satisfied, that no trust was deposed to of the nature asserted by the wife in the caveat. The submission went on to assert:

... the Wife offers no evidence to support the existence of a trust, a breach of trust, or some other foundation for the remedy of constructive trust, for instance some unconscionable dealing.

52. Again I respectfully accepted that submission. ...

54. "With respect, the highest I could put the position advanced by Mr Looney QC for the wife on the evidence is that there is an inference available to be drawn by the Court that the wife, therefore, somehow contributed $48,000 into the cost of purchasing the Q Street development site or the cost of constructing the units on that site. Without actually having deposed to the assertion or without actually submitting it was the case, I understand the wife’s case is likely to be that she therefore somehow acquired an equitable interest in the Q Street development that on the sale of all of the units in that property must be traceable, through the use of the $530,000 from the sale proceeds of those units in the purchase of the C Street site for around $1,500,000, into an interest in that property.
55. As Mr North SC submitted, correctly, I was satisfied, there was simply no evidence from the wife, who carried the onus of persuading the Court, that the $48,000 was somehow transferred by her to the Second Respondent other than as a loan and actually applied in the Suburb R development in some way. The Court was simply being asked to draw inferences to this effect from the evidence and Mr Looney QC himself even submitted that the wife could not fully “articulate all of the events that give rise to such a trust”.
56. As Mr North SC ultimately pointed out, even putting the wife’s case at its highest, with all inferences being drawn in her favour, the value of any equitable interest that she might potentially establish she had in the Q Street development that cost approximately $2,700,000 alone just to construct would have to be minimal. Tracing that through the $530,000 of the total $4,119,000 sale proceeds from Q Street that were put into the approximate $1,500,000 total purchase price of the C Street property would, if it somehow could be demonstrated to have given rise to an equitable interest, be an interest of even more minimal value.
57. In all of these circumstances, I was just not satisfied by the wife that there was a serious question to be tried and that she had demonstrated “a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo”. I was not persuaded that the wife had a “fairly arguable” caveatable interest in the C Street property.
58. Accordingly, I determined not only that the adjournment sought by the wife should not be granted but also that the caveat should be ordered to be removed without even going on to hear any further argument as to the balance of convenience."

In ordering the removal of the caveat, Justice Forrest reserved the costs of the husband. 

Having sex with others means you can still be in a de facto relationship: Family Court

Having sex with others during the duration of a relationship can still mean that you are in a de facto relationship, even if you consider that you aren't, according to a recent Family Court decision, although as Justice Tree stated, "although there may have been some aspects of the parties’ relationship which some may regard as unusual or unconventional."

In the case, known as Crowley and Pappas, a gay couple had lived together in a de facto relationship from 1987 until 2005 or 2006, when they split up. Although they moved in together in 2005 or 2006, the question was whether the de facto relationship had resumed. If it had, as Mr Crowley maintained, then it continued until 2011. Mr Pappas maintained that they had lived as flatmates.

One of the problems with that approach was about their sex life. Whether parties have sex is not the be all and end all about whether there is a de facto relationship. There are many couples, after all, who do not have sex, and many other couples who are not in a de facto relationship who do have sex.

Mr Pappas said that Mr Crowley had previously been unfaithful, before they split in 2005 or 2006 , "seeing other men behind my back whom he contacted through a  gay  chat site" and that in late 2005 he discovered that Mr Crowley was seeking sex with another man. His evidence was that Mr Crowley said “I want an open relationship.” To this Mr Pappas replied “I do not want an open relationship. That is not what a relationship is all about....I was devastated. I did not want an open relationship or to be with other people and I just wanted to have a loving and committed life partnership with [Mr Crowley]. [Mr Crowley] however expressed to me that [he] did not want this any more.”

Mr Pappas then said that about four weeks later, Mr Crowley brought another man to their home and invited Mr Pappas to join in sex with them, which invitation Mr Pappas declined. Nonetheless Mr Crowley and the other man engaged in sex in front of Mr Pappas. After that event Mr Pappas says that he told Mr Crowley “[o]ur relationship is over. What just happened makes me feel physically ill. All trust between us is gone. If you want an open relationship you can have one, but not with me.” Mr Pappas said that from that day onward, he considered that their de facto relationship was over.

Mr Pappas then says, after they started living together again:

[Mr Crowley] pressured and intimidated me into sleeping in the same bed as [him], and I succumbed, however there was absolutely no sexual contact or intimacy between [him] and I.I did not want to share a bed with [Mr Crowley] and I locked him out of the bedroom as often as I could and I would sleep in other rooms to try to avoid [him] whenever possible.
[Mr Crowley] became furious and would humiliate me whenever I broached the topic of having separate sleeping arrangements and he would become aggressive, storming off and shouting. I was intimidated by [him]. I kept sleeping in the same bed as [him] to keep the peace and avoid [his] fury. I believe that [Mr Crowley] would physically harm me if I continued to disagree with [him].
When [Mr Crowley] and I did share a bed [he]and I each slept away from each other and there was absolutely no sexual contact or intimacy between us."

Mr Pappas did concede that there had been sex between them after they started living together again:

• on one occasion where it was said that the parties had jointly engaged in sex with a third person whilst holidaying overseas. Mr Pappas appeared to concede that event, but said that on the night in question his drink had been spiked. 
• Mr Crowley  volunteered the names of two persons with whom he said both he and Mr Pappas had engaged in mutual sexual encounters, along with “several others whose names I don’t know,” which assertion was not thereafter squarely challenged by Mr Pappas. Mr Crowley went on to say that he had opened an account with a particular internet site in the mid to early 2000’s, and that both he and Mr Pappas used it to find third parties to bring into their relationship for sexual encounters. Faced with such specific assertions, Mr Pappas chose not to investigate or challenge them further in his cross-examination of Mr Crowley. 

Justice Tree stated:

The principal concern of Mr Pappas appears to be that the parties did not have a mutual commitment to an exclusive, monogamous, sexual relationship. Whether by virtue of that or otherwise, he further said that he had no mutual commitment to share his life with Mr Crowley, because in fact he was planning, upon achieving financial security, to “make a stand, after which it was going to be my rules from now on.” Leaving aside that his evidence as to that matter was not challenged, in my opinion Mr Pappas did indeed intend, after 2005, to ensure that he became financially independent of Mr Crowley My view is that he was so hurt by his long-time partner’s desire to have a non-monogamous relationship, that he wanted to be able to wholly separate from him – emotionally, physically, financially and otherwise – in the event that circumstances in the future inclined him so to do.

However that finding does not preclude Mr Pappas nonetheless being in a de facto relationship. It is equally consistent that Mr Pappas was keeping his options open to “escape” the relationship, if things went badly, but also to continue the relationship if things were tolerable. Indeed, such a strategy has a degree of common sense to it.

Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage...

Last week I happened to be in Melbourne, as I was a speaker at the Surrogacy Australia conference. This was the beginning of a manic week, which also involved attendances in the Family Court in Adelaide, and Cairns (twice).

In any case, I happened to be walking past the Commonwealth Courts building in Melbourne, which houses the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Then I saw this, which I took to be ironic.

How often does romance end in divorce? More importantly, in this picture, how often do those intending to marry take a horse drawn carriage past the place where they may divorce? Is this an omen of bad things to come?

High Court rules for a former mistress about issue estoppel

Be careful what you say, is the clear message from the High Court in a recent case. When the Family Law Act changes came through a couple of years ago to allow de facto property settlement, there was a lot of noise that mistresses may be able to claim property settlement. In the recent High Court case a former mistress was able to claim a property settlement- but by other means, by relying on issue estoppel.


Issue estoppel essentially means that because someone has made representations, and you have acted on those representations, that they are prevented- or estopped- from denying the consequences of their actions, and therefore are liable to make good.


The recent case of Sidhu v Van Dyke was a classic example of an issue estoppel case.


Facts of the case


Mr Sidhu lived with his wife in the main homestead of a 32-hectare rural property known as Burra Station, located near Queanbeyan in New South Wales. In 1996, Ms van Dyke married the brother of Mr Sidhu's wife. Later in that year, Ms van Dyke and her husband moved into Oaks Cottage, a building located approximately 100 metres away from the main homestead on Burra Station. There they began to raise their newborn child. Ms van Dyke and her husband paid rent to Mrs Sidhu.


Both the main homestead and Oaks Cottage were located on an unsubdivided lot of land described as the Homestead Block, which was owned by Mr and Mrs Sidhu.

Towards the end of 1997, Mr Sidhu and Ms van Dyke commenced a sexual relationship. In 1998, Mr Sidhu said to Ms van Dyke:

"I love you and can tell you love me too. I want you to have a home here with me. I am planning to subdivide Burra Station. As soon as this is done, I will make sure the Oaks [Cottage] is put into your name ... Using my Indian family money to buy this place means I can make my own decisions as to what I do with it, and I want you to have it because I love you. You need a home of your own to raise [your child] in. I can provide it".

Ms van Dyke's husband learned of the liaison between them, and in the middle of 1998 the Ms van Dyke and her husband separated and later divorced.

When Ms van Dyke told Mr Sidhu, who was himself a lawyer, that she needed to find a lawyer to assist her with her divorce and property settlement, he said to her words to the effect, "you have the Oaks you do not need a settlement from him. You can do the divorce yourself, you don't need a lawyer." In the divorce proceedings she did not seek a property settlement.

After the departure of Ms van Dyke's husband, she continued to live in Oaks Cottage with her young child.

In about September 1998, Ms van Dyke asked Mr Sidhu  whether she should stop paying rent "now that the Oaks is my property". Mr Sidhu replied: "How about you continue to pay what you can as this will help keep things low key with [my wife]."

While Ms van Dyke lived in Oaks Cottage, she paid rent to Mrs Sidhu at a rate which was lower than the market rate. Ms van Dyke also carried out unpaid work in relation to the maintenance and renovation of Oaks Cottage and the improvement and maintenance of Burra Station, and an adjoining rural property owned by a company in which Mr and Mrs Sidhu owned shares. Ms van Dyke was also actively involved in the work involved in the subdivision of Burra Station for which Mr and Mrs Sidhu applied to the local council. 

Ms van Dyke was employed part time elsewhere; she did not seek full-time employment during her stay at Burra Station. As a result, over a period of eight and a half years, she lost the opportunity to earn wages which she might have earned as a natural resource catchment officer or a ranger. These disadvantages were not quantified by evidence, but were substantial.

In 2000, Mr Sidhu, in response to expressions of concern by Ms van Dyke as to the security of her position, gave her a signed note in which he confirmed that "[d]uring the years 1996 to 2000" he had "expressed to [her] that [he] was willing to gift [her] the house in which she resided at the time (Oaks Cottage, ... Burra NSW)".

In mid-2005, Ms van Dyke again pressed Mr Sidhu for some confirmation of his "continued promise that the house would be [her] own". This pressure elicited an email which proposed terms for a transfer of the property "at a price based on valuation by agent[s]" but with Mr and Mrs Sidhu agreeing to bear the financial burden of defraying that price.

In October 2005, the local council gave conditional approval to a subdivision of the Homestead Block into three lots. Completion of the subdivision was conditional upon the construction of roads enabling access to the lots. In a practical sense, the subdivision also depended on the consent of Mrs Sidhu and the availability of adequate finance. One of the proposed lots ("the Oaks Property") was 7.3-7.4 hectares.

In February 2006, Oaks Cottage burnt down and the respondent and her child moved into a vacant relocatable cottage on the Homestead Block.

During May 2006, the parties discussed arrangements concerning the Ms van Dyke's long-term accommodation at Burra Station. During the course of those discussions the appellant gave the respondent a handwritten statement in which he said that his wife "agrees [that] when the house which burned in an accident in mid-February is rebuilt and as soon as it is possible to transfer the property on which the house is rebuilt, it will be done".

In July 2006, Ms van Dyke offered to purchase the relocatable cottage from Mr and Mrs Sidhu, but they rejected that offer, saying they could not sell it because they did not own it. On that day, Ms van Dyke left Burra Station and the relationship between Mr Sidhu and Ms van Dyke came to an end. Mr and Mrs Sidhu refused to transfer the Oaks Property to Ms van Dyke.

The subdivision did not proceed. Conditions of the approval as to the construction of roads were not satisfied by Mr Sidhu.

The law

The majority held:


"It is the conduct of the representee induced by the representor which is the very foundation for equitable intervention. Reliance is a fact to be found; it is not to be imputed on the basis of evidence which falls short of proof of the fact. It is actual reliance by the promisee, and the state of affairs so created, which answers the concern that equitable estoppel not be allowed to outflank Jorden v Money by dispensing with the need for consideration if a promise is to be enforceable as a contract.  It is not the breach of promise, but the promisor's responsibility for the detrimental reliance by the promisee, which makes it unconscionable for the promisor to resile from his or her promise."


Their Honours continued:


"A review of the whole of the evidence shows that the respondent had made out a compelling case of detrimental reliance. There are four broad reasons why that is so.

68. First, there is the evidence-in-chief of the respondent. It may be noted that the primary judge considered the respondent to be a truthful witness. In the respondent's evidence-in-chief she had said that:
69. "As a result of the [appellant's] repeated promise of the Oaks Property to me ... I did not seek or engage in any full time paid work in the 8.5 years between January 1998 and July 2006 ... [I]n the belief that I had a home in the Oaks Property, I chose instead to improve the Oaks and to repay the [appellant] in every way that I could using all the time and energy that I had for what I believed was his generous gift to me ... I also lost the opportunity to obtain a property settlement from my divorce ... [and] the opportunity to purchase a property for my son and me from money from my divorce settlement and salary from a full-time job."
69. That evidence was likely, as a matter of the probabilities of human behaviour, to be true. Indeed, it would be remarkable if the appellant's promises did not have some influence upon the respondent's decision to stay on and work at Burra Station. Upon the breakdown of the respondent's marriage, she was confronted with difficult decisions relating to the course of her life and the care and maintenance of her child. The appellant's promises were objectively likely to have had a significant effect upon the decision-making of a person in the respondent's position. The appellant's assurances were integral to his proposal to the respondent to put their relationship on a firm long-term footing. It is unlikely that she would have thrown in her lot with the appellant and exerted herself as she did over a period of eight and a half years if he had not made the promises which he in fact made. To the contrary, it is likely that she would have sought to maximise her own income for the benefit of herself and her infant son by seeking the most gainful form of employment.
70. Secondly, the primary judge said:

"I have no doubt that [the respondent] placed faith in [the appellant] and in the promises he made her and that this played a part in her willingness to spend time and effort in the maintenance and improvement of The Oaks Cottage and assisted [sic] on the Burra Station property".

71. Her Honour's finding that the appellant's promises "played a part in her willingness to spend time and effort in the maintenance and improvement of The Oaks Cottage and assisted on the Burra Station property" warranted the conclusion that the respondent had discharged the onus she bore on the basis that to establish estoppel by encouragement it is not necessary that the conduct of the party estopped should be the sole inducement operating on the mind of the party setting up the estoppel. Counsel for the appellant disputed this proposition but did not cite any authority in support of their position. The respondent's position is amply supported by authority.
72. In Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (in liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd, Robert Goff J said that:

"the question is not whether the representee acted, or desisted from acting, solely in reliance on the encouragement or representation of the other party; the question is rather whether his conduct was so influenced by the encouragement or representation ... that it would be unconscionable for the representor thereafter to enforce his strict legal rights." (emphasis in original)

73. Similarly, in Steria Ltd v Hutchison, Neuberger LJ said that it is sufficient for the representee to show that "the representation was a significant factor which he took into account when deciding whether to [act as he did]." This approach conforms to that taken by the High Court as long ago as Newbon v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd, where it was said that the "supposed belief" of the representee as "a contributing cause" of the representee's conduct was a "sufficient connection between the assumption and the position of detriment". It is the view which continued to prevail in Gould v Vaggelas.
74. Thirdly, apart from the respondent's direct testimony in support of her case, the primary judge accepted[81] that the respondent displayed a concern from time to time that the appellant honour his promises. While it is true that this concern was consistent with an understanding on the respondent's part that the appellant's promises were not contractually binding, the fact that the respondent exhibited that concern, and the fact that the appellant sought to allay that concern by giving her written assurances that the property would be transferred to her[82], tend to confirm that the appellant's promises were material to the respondent's willingness to remain living at Oaks Cottage and working on Burra Station as part of maintaining her ongoing relationship with the appellant.
75. Fourthly, the principal argument for the appellant, which was that the cross-examination of the respondent showed that the appellant's promises were not a real inducement which contributed to the respondent's decision to conduct herself as she did over a period of eight and a half years, is not compelling.
76. Counsel for the appellant emphasised the finding of the primary judge that the "contributions" of the appellant and the respondent to their eight-and-a-half-year relationship seemed "to be broadly matched"[83]. But the question here is whether the respondent would have committed to, and remained in, the relationship with the appellant, with all that that entailed in terms of the effect upon the material well-being of herself and her son, had she not been given the assurances made by the appellant. In this regard, the answers elicited from the respondent in cross-examination did not accept the proposition that the appellant's promises were immaterial to her. And as has been noted, some of her answers were positively to the effect that the extent of her involvement in maintaining Oaks Cottage and Burra Station was induced by the appellant's assurances of security. That evidence was to the effect that the promises in question were a vital aspect of the security which the appellant plainly understood was of concern to her.
77. This category of equitable estoppel serves to vindicate the expectations of the representee against a party who seeks unconscionably to resile from an expectation he or she has created[84]. The extent to which it is unconscionable of the appellant to seek to resile from the position expressed in his assurances to the respondent may be gauged by reflecting on the likely response of the respondent if the appellant had told her in January 1998: "I am happy for you to remain at Oaks Cottage, but only for so long as it suits me and my wife to have you here; and, while you remain on the property, you must care for it as if you were the owner of the property and do unpaid work on parts of Burra Station other than the property. Until I make the property over to you, you must pay rent sufficient to content my wife. Should you choose to leave, you will leave with nothing in return for the value of your work here."
78. In summary, on all the evidence, it should be found that the respondent was induced to remain at the property and to continue to work for the appellant and his wife by the assurances which he made. It is unconscionable for the appellant now to resile from his assurances." (emphasis added)

The matter was remitted to the NSW Supreme Court to assess damages to be paid.

Darkness to daylight challenge about domestic violence- run

On Thursday morning instead of my usual business breakfast meeting, I ran the inaugural Darkness to Daylight Challenge- a 10km fun run in Brisbane organised by my old charity, Australia's CEO Challenge. The run was part of an overnight 110km run, the number chosen to represent that at least a few years ago 110 people in Australia lost their lives in one year due to domestic violence.


I ran third of the three from Harrington Family Lawyers- my partner Bruce Provan coming first, and our associate Matt Taylor second. All up, each of us finished the 10km within the hour, a creditable achievement.


There is nothing like waking up at 4am, then race at 5.30am in time to then put in a full day at work!


The run was inspired by the efforts of Rob Read. Rob is an associate at Minter Ellison in Brisbane. He has been a long time board member of Australia's CEO Challenge. I was proud to serve alongside him for several years, until unfortunately time commitments meant that I could no longer devote the time to the charity that it deserved. Rob came up with the idea of running 110km overnight to illustrate 1 km for each person who had died due to domestic violence. And he then did that!


And if that weren't enough- he did that again on Wednesday night/Thursday morning. How, I do not know.


The amazing efforts of the greatest underfunded charity, Australia's CEO Challenge, continued apace, with support for the event coming not just from Minter Ellison, but from the army, police and various businesses. Congratulations to chair Dianne Jeans, Executive Director Wendy Reid and all the crew for an outstanding effort.


Now for the pictures for those on Facebook and via Twitter:

• the Army takes part: https://www.facebook.com/ceochallenge/photos/a.10152465482719343.1073741832.132719399342/10152465497599343/?type=3&theatre
• beautiful Brisbane: https://www.facebook.com/ceochallenge/photos/a.10152465482719343.1073741832.132719399342/10152465498009343/?type=3&theatre
• yours truly: https://www.facebook.com/ceochallenge/photos/a.10152465482719343.1073741832.132719399342/10152465500899343/?type=3&theatre
• the amazing and inspirational Rob Read: https://www.facebook.com/ceochallenge/photos/a.10152465482719343.1073741832.132719399342/10152465486714343/?type=3&theatre
• organisor Wendy Reid clearly enjoying herself, and Rob Read: https://www.facebook.com/ceochallenge/photos/a.10152465482719343.1073741832.132719399342/10152465483394343/?type=3&theatre
• the before pic: https://twitter.com/stephenpagelaw/status/464124467220738048/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=stephenpagelaw&utm_content=464124467220738048
• the after pic: https://twitter.com/stephenpagelaw/status/464142743652925440/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=stephenpagelaw&utm_content=464142743652925440

Darkness to daylight race on tomorrow

Tomorrow, with a bunch of other runners, I am taking part in the Darkness to Daylight race in Brisbane. The race organised by domestic violence charity Australia's CEO Challenge is aimed to highlight the issue of domestic violence.

The race starts tonight as part of a 110km relay. This is inspired by the actions of Rob Read, associate at Minter Ellison lawyers who ran 110km, which in turn was inspired by 110 people having died in Australia in a year due to domestic violence.

Tomorrow morning as part of the overall run there is a 10 km run. I have gamely put my hand up to take part, along with my Harrington Family Lawyers' partner Bruce Provan and associate Matt Taylor, and hopefully many others too.