Proprietary Estoppel - Cases

Thorner v Major [2009]

• Requirements for prop estoppel:

  • (1) representation/assurance made to claimant,

  • (2) reliance on it &

  • (3) detriment to C as a consequence of the reliance.

• Possible for representation to be made by conduct alone

Gillett v Holt [2001]

• Courts must consider the three elements as intertwined; the central aim is to identify if there was unconscionable conduct

Guest v Guest [2022]

• Held that the doctrine is about 'stopping' promisors from reneging on their promise. This has been criticised; in theory, new rights are being created so the word 'estopped' should not be used in this way.

• Remedy must be proportional

Stack v Dowden [2007]

• Proprietary estoppel aims to satisfy an equity with the minimum remedy needed for fairness, often just compensation, while a common intention constructive trust defines the actual ownership shares in the property—so the two doctrines should not be fully merged.

Low v Bouverie [1891]

• “In order to create an estoppel, the statement by which the Defendant is held bound must be clear and unambiguous.”

Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row

• Promissory estoppel is unlikely to arise from promises made during commercial negotiations prior to contract formation - much harsher in commercial contexts - both experienced enough to know oral contract is not binding

Wayling v Jones (1993)

• For reliance: (1) must be a sufficient link between assurance and detrimental conduct, (2) doesn't have to be the sole reason, (3) burden then shifts to D to prove there was no reliance.

Suggitt v Suggitt [2012]

• John’s detriment lay in working unpaid, living on the farm, and structuring his entire life around assurances he reasonably relied on.

Jennings v Rice

• Remedies are adjusted to reflect proportionality and justice. In cases where expectations are extravagant or unclear, remedies will not always meet expectations.