What is a Proprietary Estoppel claim?

A proprietary estoppel claim is a claim made under the Equitable Doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel in respect of ownership of property. This type of claim usually arises where property has been promised to another but without any written evidentiary proof.

The usual rule is that for land to be transferred to another party then it must comply with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. This provides that any document must be in writing and must be witnessed as a deed for the ownership of property to be transferred. As this is not always the case, especially where families are involved, the rule of equity steps in to prevent an inequitable outcome from being reached.

The doctrine of proprietary estoppel is typically used where Party B, seeks to assert a right to land belonging to another party (Party A) in circumstances where Party B has been led to believe by a promise, words, conduct or acquiescence from Party A that they have or can expect to acquire an interest in the land.

There are four elements to establish an equity for propriety estoppel:

• Promise
• Reliance
• Detriment
• Unconscionability

Promise

The person claiming the land or interest (Claimant) must demonstrate that there was an assurance which created an expectation that they would become entitled to the property. The court has wide discretion in terms of what it considers to amount to a promise.

The case of Thorner v Major [2009] involved David Thorner, a Somerset farmer who worked on the farm of his father’s cousin, Peter Major, for nearly 30 years. Peter had encouraged David to believe that he would inherit the farm and David acted in reliance upon this assurance. However Peter left no will which meant that his estate would pass according to the rules of intestacy and David would not inherit.

The Judge at first instance found the case proved but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, and it went to the House of Lords. The difficulty in this claim was that there was no express promise, but rather “a matter of implication and inference from indirect statements and conduct.” The court considered such matters as handing David an insurance policy saying, “that’s for my death duties” to indicate that Peter had intended David to inherit the farm and therefore this equated to a ‘promise’.

Reliance

In order to succeed in a proprietary estoppel claim, the Claimant needs to demonstrate that they understood and accepted the promise as true and acted in some form of reliance on that promise.

The case of James v James [2018] involved another farm. Sam devoted his working life to his father’s farm. His father had built up a business and had acquired various parcels of land in Dorset. The land was disposed of in his will which provided for the land to go to his daughters and for the farm to be held for his wife for her life, but he left nothing to Sam.

After his father’s death, Sam claimed that he was entitled to the land by result of proprietary estoppel. He relied on his father asking him whether he should purchase some additional land and indicating that Sam would be farming it one day. However, Sam was unable to point to any promise or act which allowed him to believe he would inherit the land.

The court found that it was more a case of Sam’s eagerness to inherit the farmland from his father which had caused him to persuade himself that he was being promised something when he was not. Sam’s case also lacked the necessary reliance and detriment to find a proprietary estoppel. Sam never really thought about moving away and doing anything else, so he lacked evidence demonstrating that he had given something up to rely on the promise.

Detriment

As well as reliance on that promise, to succeed with a proprietary estoppel argument, the claimant must also demonstrate some form of detriment. In other words, they must have suffered a loss or hardship – usually financial – as a result of relying on the promise.

The case of Gillett & Holt [2001] is a relevant case on detriment. Gillett claimed repeated assurances that Holt would leave his agricultural land and farming business to Gillett by his will. Gillett had gone to work for Holt on a full-time basis at his farming business. Holt retired from the business in 1964 and Gillett ran the business as farm manager. Gillett contended that Holt had treated him like a son. There were several instances over a number of years where Holt had given oral assurances that, “one day all this will be yours.” Gillett had committed the future of himself and his family to the farm business however following a breakdown in the relationship, Holt made a further will by which he left his entire estate to someone else.

The court at first instance found that Gillett had failed to prove he had suffered detriment in reliance upon Holt’s assurances. On appeal, the court held that detriment was not a narrow or technical concept, it need not consist of the expenditure of money or other financial detriment but had to be approached as part of a broad enquiry as to whether it was unconscionable in all the circumstances for the representor to renege from the representation. The appeal was allowed.

Unconscionability

The last element of proprietary estoppel is to demonstrate to the court that it would be unconscionable for the promisor to go back (renege) on the promise.

In the case of Jennings & Rice [2002], Mr Jennings worked as a handyman for Ms Royle for many years and he did so unpaid. Instead of payment, Ms Royle promised her house and furniture would become Mr Jennings’ on her death. However, Ms Royle did not make a will and she died intestate which meant that her estate would pass according to the rules of intestacy and Mr Jennings would not inherit. Mr Jennings brought a claim against the estate on the grounds of proprietary estoppel.

The Judge found that the evidence clearly established the Claimant had believed he was going to receive all or part of the deceased’s property and he had acted to his detriment in caring for her in an unpaid manner. It would be unconscionable for the deceased to go back on assurances. He accordingly found for the Claimant. He assessed the equity in the case of £200,000 (even though the estate was worth considerably more). The Judge considered what the Claimant knew about the deceased’s wealth and whether the award was proportionate to what the Claimant might have charged for his services.

The Claimant appealed on the grounds that he was entitled to the deceased’s whole estate or an equivalent sum. On appeal, the Judge considered it was right to conclude the award must be proportionate and the appeal was dismissed.

Awards

In considering the types of awards to make, the court has a very wide discretion. It is not always a straightforward case of what you have lost, you will receive back. Sometimes the courts have offered the property which was promised as part of the award but on other occasions the court has not seen fit to do so and has instead awarded a financial sum. Therefore, it is very fluid and unpredictable in terms of what awards the court can make.

Summary

Proprietary estoppel is a complex area based on case law. The court has a very wide discretion and considers each matter on its merits. The success of a claim is very much down to demonstrating the four elements, promise, reliance, detriment and unconscionability. Lack of evidence can be a concern for these types of matters especially where the person who made the promise is no longer around. Even where a claim is successful there is no guarantee that the Claimant will receive what they were promised. It is therefore key to keep evidence of any such promises regarding land and if at all possible to have them formalised by a legal agreement.

Written by Tara McInnes, Partner at The Burnside Partnership