The Trial of the Plaintiff’s Action for divorce and the division of matrimonial property was heard alongside the Trial of the Plaintiff’s Action against his in-laws to enforce, through the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, a promise to transfer property. The Plaintiff’s in-laws argued that proprietary estoppel was not adequately pleaded, in reference to the requirement of Rule 13.6 that a pleading state the “facts on which a party relies, but not the evidence by which the facts are to be proved”. Justice Feth determined that the material facts supporting each element of proprietary estoppel were identified in the Statement of Claim, and accordingly held that proprietary estoppel was sufficiently pleaded.