Understanding Detriment in Proprietary Estoppel: Pérez de la Sala v Pérez de la Sala [2026] NSWCA 160

Perez de la Sala v Pérez de la Sala (No 5) [2026] NSWSC 556 concerned an application by Maria-Christina Pérez de la Sala (the plaintiff) for leave to amend her statement of claim to replead a proprietary estoppel claim previously struck out in Pérez de la Sala v Pérez de la Sala (No 4) [2026] NSWSC 163. The proceedings relate to the estate of the late Robert Pérez de la Sala. The plaintiff, Maria-Christina Pérez de la Sala, is his daughter.

The deceased died in 2022. Probate was granted to his widow, Felicite Terrill Pérez de la Sala, who administered the estate. In 2020, the deceased resolved litigation in Singapore with his brother, resulting in assets exceeding $500 million. The other defendants include the plaintiff’s ex-husband and siblings, who are alleged to have received significant distributions from the estate, either as gifts from the deceased or from the executor.

Following Pérez de la Sala v Pérez de la Sala (No 4) [2026] NSWSC 163, the first defendant applied to retire as executor in favour of the fifth defendant. That application remains pending and is not relevant to the current issue. In No 4, Parker J struck out the earlier estoppel claim but granted leave to replead, identifying defects capable of amendment. The plaintiff filed a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim and sought leave to amend. The defendants opposed, submitting that the proposed pleading remained deficient.

Assets from the 2020 Singapore litigation, valued at over $500 million, comprise a substantial part of the estate. The plaintiff’s estoppel claim sought a proprietary entitlement to one quarter of these assets. In both applications, the plaintiff relied on Kramer v Stone (2024) 281 CLR 484 and did not dispute Parker J’s analysis in No 4.

Parker J described the plaintiff’s claim as one of proprietary estoppel. Counsel for the plaintiff characterised it as equitable estoppel, emphasising that the doctrine is not confined to promises concerning existing interests in real property. For convenience, the judgment refers to the claim as a claim of proprietary estoppel, without limiting the doctrine’s broader application.

The plaintiff alleged that the deceased made representations over many years about her involvement in the family business and her future entitlement to family wealth. She claimed these assurances entitled her to a one-quarter share of the assets obtained in the 2020 settlement.

The proposed amended pleading relied particularly upon:

1. a Litigation Promise allegedly made in 2011–2012 that, if the litigation against Ernest succeeded, the deceased would honour his parents’ intentions and distribute the recovered family assets equally among his children; and
2. a 2017 Promise that the plaintiff and her siblings were “going to receive an equal share”.

The plaintiff alleged reliance on these representations by funding and assisting the family litigation, working for family companies, acting as a director, and foregoing other opportunities.

Issue

What practical factors should practitioners assess when determining whether a proposed amended statement of claim advances a sufficiently arguable proprietary estoppel claim to justify leave to amend?

Key practical factors include:

• Specificity of the promises or assurances pleaded, with clear identification of dates and substance;
• Detailed acts of reliance undertaken by the claimant after those promises were made;
• Clear demonstration of detriment suffered by the claimant as a result of reliance;
• Precise identification of the property or equitable interest to which the claim relates; and
• Appropriateness and proportionality of the relief sought, with a direct connection to the promises, detriment, and property or interest claimed.

Each factor should be addressed in detail to ensure that a proposed pleading meets the threshold for leave to amend.

Held

Leave to amend was refused. Parker J accepted that the Litigation Promise, if established, could support a claim for proprietary estoppel. The 2017 Promise might also suffice if pleaded as an actual promise by the deceased to confer a benefit.

The proposed pleading was fundamentally defective and could not be remedied by striking out individual paragraphs. The main defects were insufficient particularity in pleading acts of detrimental reliance, failure to link specific instances of detriment to actionable promises, and inadequate identification of the property or interest to which the claimed equity attached. Practitioners should ensure pleadings specify the promises, the acts of reliance occurring after those promises, the nature of the detriment suffered, and the property or interest sought. For example, a sufficiently particularised act of detrimental reliance might state that, following a specific promise in 2012, the plaintiff resigned from employment in Australia, relocated to Singapore at her own expense, and undertook unpaid work managing Family Holdings Pte Ltd, resulting in loss of income and missed career opportunities. This level of detail is necessary to establish a viable proprietary estoppel pleading.

To minimise repeated deficiencies after a strike-out, practitioners should implement an iterative review process. Workflow steps such as a peer-review checklist help verify that each draft addresses key requirements: specificity of promises, clear acts of reliance, and precise identification of property interests. Regular review meetings and internal deadlines for supervisory feedback at key milestones support this process. Structured templates or checklists for each review round promote consistency and thoroughness. Ongoing feedback during drafting enables early correction of issues, such as insufficient particularity or inadequate linkage between promises and reliance, improving the clarity and effectiveness of the pleading.

Common pitfalls in proprietary estoppel pleadings include vague assertions of reliance or detriment without specifying acts and losses, failure to link each allegation of reliance to a particular promise, lack of clear identification of the property or interest claimed, conflating family expectations with actionable promises, and insufficient particularity in the relief sought or its connection to the pleaded equity. Best practice is to provide a chronological sequence linking each promise to subsequent acts of reliance and claimed detriment, with dates and factual detail where possible. Allegations should be supported by documentary evidence. Regular review for potential weaknesses is essential to ensure clarity and particularity.

A particularised pleading of reliance and detriment should specify the relevant promise, the act of reliance, and the resulting loss. For example, in March 2012, following the deceased’s express promise of an equal share in assets recovered from the Singapore litigation, the plaintiff resigned from employment in Australia, relocated to Singapore, and undertook unpaid work as a director and manager for Family Holdings Pte Ltd, resulting in financial loss and lost career opportunities. Pleadings should avoid generalised assertions and instead link each act of reliance to a specific promise, stating the actual loss or disadvantage suffered. For instance, between 2012 and 2018, the plaintiff contributed $2.5 million of her own funds toward litigation expenses at the deceased’s request and in reliance on the Litigation Promise, and did not receive reimbursement from the estate.

These examples illustrate the required level of detail for pleading reliance and detriment.

Parker J’s Reasoning

Promise

Most statements by the deceased from the 1990s onwards were characterised as contextual representations rather than enforceable promises.

A proprietary estoppel requires an identifiable promise or assurance. While a promise may develop over time, the pleading must specify when the promise capable of founding the estoppel arose.

The Litigation Promise met the pleading threshold. The 2017 statement required clearer pleading to establish that the deceased was objectively promising to confer an equal share, rather than merely predicting the plaintiff would receive one.

Detrimental reliance

The principal difficulty for the plaintiff was the chronology of events.

Much of the alleged reliance, including education, overseas employment, and relocation to Singapore, occurred before the potentially actionable promises were made. Conduct before a promise cannot constitute detrimental reliance on that promise.

The pleaded acts of reliance after 2011 lacked particularity. Allegations that the plaintiff funded litigation, assisted with proceedings, or acted as a company director did not necessarily establish personal detriment. Courts have accepted detriment where a claimant has incurred substantial personal expenditure, made significant career or life changes resulting in financial loss, or rendered unpaid services to their own disadvantage. Practitioners should plead these forms of detriment with detailed factual allegations to demonstrate actual loss or disadvantage in reliance on the promise.

In considering evidence of detrimental reliance, courts apply a hierarchy of persuasiveness. Documentary evidence is generally preferred and attracts the most weight as it is typically contemporaneous and objective. Bank records or financial statements showing the claimant’s personal payment of legal fees or litigation costs, employment contracts or resignation letters indicating lost or forgone salary due to reliance on a promise, contemporaneous correspondence or emails confirming the claimant’s understanding of the promise and actions taken in reliance, and company records demonstrating unpaid director roles or other uncompensated work are particularly persuasive.

Affidavits from the claimant and corroborating witnesses are useful, especially where documentary evidence is unavailable, but are generally regarded as supplemental. At a minimum, affidavits should specify in detail the material facts relied on, including exact dates, specific amounts expended or lost, the nature and duration of work performed or opportunities forgone, and provide corroborative facts where possible. Courts expect affidavits to identify independent witnesses who can confirm key aspects of the claimant’s account and, ideally, explain any lack of documentation. The stronger the detail and corroboration, the more likely the affidavit will satisfy the court’s sufficiency threshold for evidence in the absence of documents.

Affidavits that include supporting documentation or references to external corroboration carry greater weight. Oral testimony on its own carries less evidentiary value, as it is subject to challenge and may be less reliable.

Courts have found that sufficiently detailed and credible affidavits, particularly when corroborated by independent witnesses, may be adequate to support an arguable pleading where primary documents cannot reasonably be obtained, provided the allegations are precise, consistent, and contextually plausible. For example, in recent decisions, courts have accepted affidavit evidence of lost career opportunities or unpaid work where the claimant demonstrates identifiable financial loss and the connection to a specific promise is clearly pleaded. Nonetheless, the practical benchmark is that the claim must present cogent evidence, whether written or oral, that enables the court to be satisfied there is a genuine issue to be tried and that reliance resulted in substantial detriment. In marginal cases, the overall credibility and specificity of the claimant’s evidence—including credible explanations for the absence of documents—may determine whether the sufficiency threshold is met.

Practitioners should prioritise collecting primary documents and contemporaneous written records to support pleaded acts of reliance and detriment. Oral evidence and witness affidavits may address evidentiary gaps but must be detailed and consistent to meet the court’s sufficiency threshold.

A combination of documentary and oral evidence provides the strongest support for the alleged loss.

The relevant inquiry is the significant opportunities, expenditure, or disadvantages incurred by the plaintiff as a result of reliance on the promise, not the benefit conferred on the companies or the deceased.

Reliance after mid-2017 was not easily reconciled with evidence of estrangement and deterioration in the relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased.

Relief

The remedies sought were not properly framed to seek a declaration of equitable estoppel. The pleading needed to identify the substantive equitable relief required to satisfy the equity. In proprietary estoppel cases, appropriate relief may include the transfer of a specific property interest, the grant of an entitlement, such as a share in an estate or business, or equitable compensation where proprietary relief is impractical. Practitioners should plead the precise relief sought, ensuring a clear connection between the promise, the detriment, and the nature of the equitable remedy claimed.

The plaintiff sought payment of approximately $125.7 million, representing one quarter of the settlement proceeds. The deceased, however, had received ownership of companies and shares, not a direct entitlement to the cash held by those companies.

Company Ownership: Shares v Underlying Assets

The pleading conflated ownership of shares in a company with ownership of the underlying assets in which the interest arose; the plaintiff was required to identify the property received by the deceased, establish the interest attaching to that property, and, if necessary, trace that interest into substituted property or distributions. In complex estate matters involving layered ownership structures, effective tracing requires a systematic approach:

(1) clearly identify the original property to which the equity attaches;

(2) ascertain all transactions or transfers involving that property following the creation of the proprietary estoppel;

(3) track the flow of assets through company structures, trusts, or intermediaries using available documentation such as asset registers, share registers, bank records, and corporate filings; and

(4) demonstrate a continuous link between the original interest and any substituted forms of property or distributions ultimately received by the relevant parties.

Legal tests for tracing generally require showing that the plaintiff’s equitable interest is capable of following the property or its proceeds through changes in form or holder, provided the property or proceeds remain identifiable. The pleadings must therefore set out the factual and legal basis for each stage of the tracing chain, specify the property or amount sought at each link, and identify the ultimate relief claimed. This level of detail is essential for a robust tracing claim in proprietary estoppel proceedings.

Practical Tracing Tips

To assist practitioners handling layered ownership structures, the following practical steps can be taken to gather tracing evidence effectively:

• Compile an inventory of all relevant entities within the ownership structure, such as companies, trusts, or partnerships, and identify the shareholdings or beneficial interests held by the deceased at each level.
• Collect all available documents, including asset registers, share certificates, registers of members, trust deeds, company constitutions, board minutes, bank account statements, and transaction records to map the movement of assets.
• Review corporate records and filings (such as ASIC company extracts or equivalent foreign registries) to monitor changes in ownership, directorships, or significant transactions involving key assets.
• Trace the flow of proceeds from the original property through any inter-company loans, dividends, capital reductions, or distributions, maintaining chronologies of each transaction.
• Identify any substitutions or disposals of property and gather evidence explaining how, when, and under what authority replacements or transfers occurred.

Cross-border tracing presents unique procedural and evidentiary challenges, particularly where entities are located offshore or in multiple jurisdictions. Practical difficulties may include delays in obtaining evidence, differences in disclosure and admissibility rules, language barriers, and variations in local business practices. Practitioners may encounter obstacles such as limited access to foreign records, slow responses to requests, and unfamiliar document formats.

Cross-Border Tracing Actions

1. Engage experienced local Counsel or professional advisors in each relevant jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity.
2. Identify key documentation to be obtained, such as asset registers, share certificates, corporate filings, and bank statements, and determine their likely locations.
3. Assess and address legal obstacles, including confidentiality restrictions and evidentiary rules specific to each jurisdiction.
4. Issue formal letters of request (letters rogatory) or court disclosure orders when voluntary cooperation is not forthcoming.
5. Collaborate with local professionals to obtain and authenticate documentation in accordance with local standards.
6. Monitor jurisdiction-specific procedural requirements, language issues, and potential delays, adjusting the timeline as needed.
7. Maintain a clear and detailed record of all cross-border requests, evidence received, and procedural steps taken.
8. Take proactive measures to minimise delays, such as identifying and addressing unique jurisdictional challenges at an early stage.

A structured approach strengthens the evidentiary basis for tracing claims and improves the prospects of effective cross-border discovery.

Maintain a detailed tracing schedule or diagram visualising the movement of assets, which can be used to inform pleadings and present evidence clearly at trial.

These steps ensure that tracing claims in complex estate matters are supported by thorough factual investigation and robust documentary evidence.

If tracing was unavailable, the appropriate remedy might be equitable compensation against the estate. In general, proprietary relief, such as the transfer of a specific property interest or share, will be appropriate where it is possible to specifically identify and trace the property to which the equity attaches. Conversely, equitable compensation will be appropriate where proprietary relief is impracticable, such as when the relevant property cannot be identified, has been dissipated, or cannot be returned.

Remedies

In determining which remedy to award, courts consider whether the claimant’s equitable interest can be tied to a specific asset and aim to provide a remedy that does the minimum injustice to both parties. Where a clear link exists, Courts prefer to award the specific property. If not, they assess fair compensation to reflect the claimant’s loss. When assessing equitable compensation, practitioners should plead and, where possible, quantify the loss suffered by the claimant. This may involve reference to the market value of the property or interest lost, the value of lost opportunity or foregone benefits, or calculation of consequential losses directly linked to the detrimental reliance.

Wherever necessary, valuation evidence, expert reports, or market appraisals can be used to substantiate the sum claimed. For example, where the claimant was promised a share in an asset or business, compensation can be measured by the market value of that interest at the relevant time or by quantifying the financial disadvantage suffered as a result of lost opportunities.

Where the market value is uncertain, or evidence is difficult to obtain, practitioners may rely on expert estimates, analogous transactions, or industry benchmarks as comparators to assist in quantification. Other practical approaches include averaging sale prices of similar assets in the relevant jurisdiction or using valuation formulae commonly applied by accountants or business appraisers. In some cases, loss can be estimated by considering likely lost income or dividends, or by reference to the price recently paid for comparable interests. The following checklist may assist practitioners in quantifying equitable compensation:

• Identify the type of property or interest lost (e.g., shares, real property, business interest).
• Ascertain available evidence of value (market sales data, expert valuation, financial statements).
• Consider using independent valuation reports, accountant estimates, or recent arm’s length transactions involving similar assets.
• Calculate consequential losses, such as lost income, profits, or opportunities, supported by financial modelling if appropriate.
• Document the methodology and sources used for the valuation, explaining any limitations due to lack of direct evidence.

Thoughtful quantification assists the court in fashioning an appropriate remedy and strengthens the pleading’s practical effectiveness. Practitioners should assess whether the circumstances allow for identification or tracing of property interests before seeking compensation, ensuring that the pleaded remedy aligns with the facts and the equitable principle underlying the claim. When pleading in the alternative, practitioners should set out both proprietary and compensatory forms of relief. For example, pleadings may seek the transfer or declaration of an interest in specific property or, if proprietary relief cannot be granted due to identification or tracing issues, claim equitable compensation as an alternative. Clearly stating alternative remedies ensures that, if the court declines to grant proprietary relief, a compensatory award remains available.

To assist practitioners, model phrases for pleading alternative relief include:

• The plaintiff seeks an order declaring her equitable interest in [specific property], and, in the alternative, an order for the transfer of [that property] to her name.
• “Alternatively, if tracing of the relevant property is found to be impracticable, the plaintiff claims equitable compensation from the estate in an amount equal to [the value of the share or property] which would otherwise have been received pursuant to the promise.

These examples provide a practical template for pleading both proprietary and compensatory relief in proprietary estoppel claims.

Claims against other defendants

The plaintiff also sought accounts against her former husband and siblings on the basis that they had received assets originating from the deceased or his estate.

Such relief required a properly pleaded tracing case demonstrating that property subject to the plaintiff’s equitable entitlement had passed to those defendants. The proposed pleading did not establish that chain.

Principle

A proprietary estoppel pleading must identify a coherent sequence of events:

promise → reliance → substantial detriment → repudiation → equity → appropriate remedy.

Where proprietary relief is sought, the claimant must identify the property to which the equity attaches and, where necessary, plead an adequate basis for tracing that property or its substitutes.

Long-standing family representations and expectations may provide context but do not establish an estoppel unless they crystallise into an actionable promise followed by detrimental reliance.

Orders

The plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff indicated that no further application to amend would be made in the first instance and that leave to appeal would be sought.

The plaintiff’s remaining proceeding is a family provision claim, quantified at $20 million. Existing anti-suit protections concerning the Singapore proceedings were extended until 6 pm on 2 June 2026.

Parker J concluded that the pleading could not be repaired simply by removing its defective parts. Much of the alleged detrimental reliance occurred before the two potentially relevant promises and therefore could not have been induced by them. There were also deficiencies in the pleaded detriment and relief. His Honour refused leave to file the pleading, although he did not entirely exclude a properly reformulated future applicationPérez

Pérez de la Sala Pérezez de la Sala [2026] NSWCA 160

The applicant sought leave to appeal from interlocutory orders of Parker J refusing leave to file a proposed second further amended statement of claim. The only claim pleaded was a proprietary estoppel claim. The proceedings relate to the Will and codicil of the deceased, and to the assets and funds left in the Will to the applicant’s mother. The deceased made no provision in the Will for the applicant.

In oral submissions before Parker J, senior Counsel then representing the applicant made several concessions that only two representations pleaded in the second further amended statement of claim, described as the litigation promise and the 2017 promise, could ground an estoppel. In light of this, and in any event, his Honour found that only these two promises could ground the claim advanced in the second further amended statement of claim. Parker J held that it was not possible to salvage a viable claim from the second further amended statement of claim by omitting the ” untenable” parts of it. In these circumstances, his Honour refused the applicant’s application for leave to file the second further amended statement of claim.

Notably courts will rarely permit a party to withdraw forensic concessions made during proceedings. Exceptions are generally limited to situations where the concession was made in clear error or misunderstanding, or where withdrawal would not cause prejudice to other parties or affect the proper administration of justice. Practitioners should bear this in mind when advising clients about the binding nature of concessions and potential litigation risks.

Best practice requires careful management of concessions to avoid unintended binding admissions. Practitioners should confirm in writing with their clients all instructions regarding proposed concessions before making any statements on the record. Keeping a written record of both the client’s instructions and the terms of any concession provided to the court helps to clarify intent and protects against dispute. Practitioners should also clearly document the scope and purpose of any concession within their own files and promptly communicate any changes in instructions to the court where necessary. Regularly reviewing forensic decisions at key milestones in the litigation can help identify and address unintended admissions before they become binding. These practical steps promote clarity, help to prevent disputes over the meaning or scope of concessions, and reduce the risk of adverse consequences for clients.

Decision

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. It held that:

Parker J was entitled to rely on Counsel’s express, repeated and unqualified concessions.

The appellant was not permitted to withdraw those concessions on appeal. Parties are ordinarily bound by deliberate forensic decisions made by their legal representatives, particularly where allowing withdrawal would undermine finality and the orderly administration of justice.

The concessions concerned the scope of the factual case, not merely questions of law.
Independently of the concessions, only the litigation promise and the 2017 promise—if reformulated in genuinely promissory terms—could arguably satisfy the requirement identified in Kramer v Stone (2024) 281 CLR 484 that proprietary estoppel be founded on a clear and unequivocal promise.

Once the remaining representations were excluded, much of Christina’s pleaded reliance and detriment lost its foundatioPérez

Pérez de la SalaPérezrez de la Sala [2026] NSWCA 160 illustrates the importance of precisely pleading proprietary estoppel. A claimant must identify a clear promise, establish reliance on that promise, and show detriment resulting from that reliance. Contextual statements do not substitute for a promise, and acts occurring before the promise cannot ordinarily constitute reliance upon it. The case also confirms that clear forensic concessions made at first instance Will rarely be permitted to be withdrawn on appeal. This principle is based on the need for finality and certainty in litigation, as parties are expected to be bound by the strategic decisions and admissions made by their legal representatives during proceedings. Exceptions to this rule are rare and usually limited to circumstances where withdrawal would not prejudice other parties or the integrity of the justice process, such as when the concession was made due to clear mistake or misunderstanding. Practitioners should advise clients that, in most cases, concessions made before the trial judge Will remain binding on appeal, and attempts to reverse them face significant procedural and substantive obstacles.

Significance

The decision highlights the need to distinguish family expectations and historical assurances from a specific promise capable of generating an equitable estoppel.

The decision demonstrates that establishing estoppel is only part of the analysis. A claimant seeking proprietary relief must connect the promise and detriment to an identifiable equitable interest and to the specific property, tracing, or compensation remedy claimed.

Practitioners consider the following procedural steps:

1. Clearly identify and plead the specific promise or assurance capable of founding a proprietary estoppel.
2. Detail the acts of reliance undertaken by the claimant after the promise was made, stating precisely how those acts occasioned personal detriment.
3. Specify the property or equitable interest alleged to arise by reason of the promise and detriment.
4. Where appropriate, trace the interest from the original property to any substituted property or distributions received by the defendants.
5. Plead the precise form of relief sought, ensuring it is proportionate and directly linked to the promise, detriment, and the property or interest to which the equity attaches.

Procedural Checklist for Pleading Proprietary Estoppel

Practitioners may use the following checklist as a quick reference when drafting pleadings for proprietary estoppel. For each checklist item, model phrases are provided to assist with practical drafting:

• Clearly identify and plead the specific promise or assurance capable of founding a proprietary estoppel.
• Detail the acts of reliance undertaken by the claimant after the promise was made, stating precisely how those acts occasioned personal detriment.
• Specify the property or equitable interest alleged to arise by reason of the promise and detriment.
• Where appropriate, trace the interest from the original property to any substituted property or distributions received by the defendants.
• Plead the precise form of relief sought, ensuring it is proportionate and directly linked to the promise, detriment, and the property or interest to which the equity attaches.

This checklist assists practitioners in presenting a clear and actionable case addressing all key requirements for proprietary estoppel relief. Practitioners should also consider whether to plead family provision claims in parallel with proprietary estoppel claims, particularly in estate matters. Running both claims may maximise available remedies and preserve alternative bases for relief if one claim fails. Care is required to ensure factual allegations are consistent and that the claims do not undermine each other. Practitioners should assess the relative strength and evidentiary foundation of each claim and be aware of procedural complexities, such as the risk of inconsistent findings or unnecessary costs. In some cases, strategic sequencing or distinct pleading may be appropriate. Early consideration of these factors enables the development of a comprehensive litigation strategy aligned with the client’s objectives.

For example, a claimant may run a proprietary estoppel claim alongside a family provision claim by first advancing the estoppel claim based on alleged promises and detrimental reliance, while also pleading in the alternative for further provision from the estate if the estoppel claim is unsuccessful. Practitioners must avoid inconsistencies, such as alleging financial dependency in a family provision claim while asserting significant independent contributions for an estoppel claim. If the evidence for proprietary estoppel is uncertain, it may be preferable to sequence the claims, pressing the strongest claim first and reserving the other as a fallback to reduce the risk of conflicting findings or unnecessary costs. Careful planning and clear communication with the client regarding the advantages and potential pitfalls of parallel or sequenced claims is essential.

For further reading, practitioners may consult Giumelli v Giumelli (1999) 196 CLR 101, the leading High Court authority on proprietary estoppel in Australia. The text “Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity: Doctrines and Remedies” (5th ed., 2015) also provides comprehensive coverage of estoppel by encouragement and related doctrines. These resources offer detailed analysis and practical guidance for those seeking to develop expertise in this area.

The post Understanding Detriment in Proprietary Estoppel: Pérez de la Sala v Pérez de la Sala [2026] NSWCA 160 appeared first on heirs & successes.