Facts: In 1996, Ms Van Dyke and her then husband moved into a house known as Oaks Cottage, which was located on a block of land known as the Homestead Block owned by Mr Sidhu and his wife. Towards the end of 1997, Mr Sidhu and Ms Van Dyke commenced a relationship, during which Mr Sidhu gave assurances to Ms Van Dyke to the effect that he would subdivide the land and transfer Oaks Cottage to her once the site had been subdivided. Ms Van Dyke continued in her relationship with Mr Sidhu, performed unpaid work on the Homestead Block and Oaks Cottage and did not pursue gainful employment elsewhere. She also did not seek a property settlement from her husband when they divorced in 1998. In 2006, the relationship between Mr Sidhu and Ms Van Dyke came to an end and Mr Sidhu refused to transfer the property on which the Oaks Cottage sat ("the Oaks property") to Ms Van Dyke. Ms Van Dyke commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, claiming that Mr Sidhu was estopped from departing from his assurances on the basis that she had acted in reliance on those representations to her detriment.
Held (NSWSC): Dismissed her claim on the basis the trial judge was not satisfied that Ms Van Dyke had acted to her detriment in reliance on Mr Sidhu's assurances.
Held (NSWCA): Allowed Ms Van Dyke's appeal, holding that, where inducement by the promise may be inferred from Ms Van Dyke's conduct, there was a presumption that Ms Van Dyke acted to her detriment in reliance on Mr Sidhu's representations. Mr Sidhu had failed to rebut that presumption. Mr Sidhu was precluded from departing from his assurances, and ordered Mr Sidhu to pay Ms Van Dyke equitable compensation in an amount to be assessed by reference to the market value of the Oaks property. Mr Sidhu was precluded from departing from his assurances that he would transfer certain real property to Ms Van Dyke.
By grant of special leave, Mr Sidhu appealed to the High Court.
Held (HCA unanimously): Dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal erred in proceeding upon a presumption Ms Van Dyke acted to her detriment in reliance on Mr Sidhu's representations. Ms Van Dyke bore the onus of proof in relation to detrimental reliance, and her evidence at trial established she had acted to her detriment in reliance on Mr Sidhu's representations. On that basis, Ms Van Dyke was entitled to equitable compensation in an amount to be assessed by reference to the value of the Oaks property.