Requirements of proprietary estoppel: assurance, reliance and detriment
Over fifteen years Bryn Hughes, who farmed in Herefordshire, England, repeatedly told his nephew Owain, 'Stick with me and this farm will be yours when I'm gone.' Relying on this, Owain worked full time on the farm for well below the going wage and turned down two better-paid jobs elsewhere. Nothing was ever put in writing and there was no contract. Shortly before he died, Bryn made a new will leaving the farm to a neighbour. Owain consults you.
Which of the following best describes Owain's position?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: He may claim in proprietary estoppel, having reasonably relied to his detriment on Bryn's assurance about the farm, and the court may grant a remedy.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Proprietary estoppel arises where an assurance about property is reasonably relied on to the claimant's detriment, making it unconscionable for the promisor to go back on it.
Requirements of proprietary estoppel: assurance, reliance and detriment
Proprietary estoppel allows equity to intervene where a person makes a promise or assurance about property and the other relies on it to his detriment. Lord Briggs in Guest v Guest explained that a promise is not enforceable unless it is part of a contract, and a person is free to change his will until he dies. Even so, equity may give the promisee a remedy if a promise to confer property in the future was made and he acted to his detriment in reliance on it. Thorner v Major identifies the elements as an assurance, reasonable reliance and resulting detriment. Owain received repeated assurances that the farm would be his, and he worked for low wages and gave up better jobs in reliance on them. Those facts can satisfy each element, so an equity may arise against Bryn's estate. The remedy is for the court to decide in the light of all the circumstances, and is not guaranteed to be the whole farm.
Why A is wrong: Proprietary estoppel operates outside contract, so the absence of a signed written contract does not bar it.
Why B is wrong: There was no contract: Bryn's words were an informal family assurance, and a contract to dispose of land would in any case need signed writing.
Why C is wrong: That is the general rule, but equity intervenes where the promisee has relied on the assurance to his detriment.
Why E is wrong: Expectation is the usual starting point, but the remedy is discretionary and the court is not bound to give effect to the promise exactly.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Oral declaration of trust of land: LPA 1925 s.53(1)(b)
Can Beatrix enforce the trust against Owen?
Presumed resulting trust: purchase money provided by another
Which of the following best describes the beneficial ownership of the flat?
Family home in joint names: the starting point (Stack v Dowden; Jones v Kernott)
What is the starting point for deciding how the beneficial interest in the house is shared?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.