Proprietary Estoppel is a powerful legal tool in England and Wales, often used to enforce informal promises concerning land and property. It enables individuals to claim rights in property, even in the absence of a formal agreement, if they can show that they relied on a promise to their detriment. This article explains how Proprietary Estoppel works, the types of situations it commonly arises in, how such claims are brought and defended, and highlights key legal Proprietary Estoppel authorities.
What is Proprietary Estoppel?
Proprietary Estoppel is a principle of fairness. It prevents someone who owns property from going back on a promise they made to another person, when that person has reasonably relied on the promise and suffered as a result. The courts use it to stop one party from behaving unconscionably in light of that reliance and detriment.
The three key elements
To bring a successful claim, the following must be proven:
- Assurance
The property owner must have made a promise or given an assurance that the claimant would have a right in the property. This can be expressed directly or implied through actions and conduct.
- Reliance
The claimant must have relied on the assurance. This usually means they changed their position or made decisions based on the expectation that the promise would be honoured.
- Detriment
The claimant must have suffered a disadvantage or loss because they relied on the assurance. This could include unpaid work, financial expenditure, or giving up other opportunities.
Common situations where claims arise
Proprietary Estoppel commonly features in disputes involving:
- Promises of inheritance made within families;
- Informal agreements between cohabiting partners; and
- Situations where someone has invested time, labour, or money into property they were led to believe would become theirs.
Remedies available
If a Proprietary Estoppel claim succeeds, the court has flexibility in deciding how to remedy the situation. Remedies can include:
- Transfer of part or all of the property;
- A financial payment as compensation; and
- Granting a right to live in the property (e.g. for life).
The outcome depends on what is fair in light of the detriment suffered and the expectations created.
Defending a Proprietary Estoppel claim
Property owners or their representatives can challenge these claims in several ways:
- Denying the promise - arguing that no clear assurance was ever given, or that the words or actions relied on were too vague.
- Disputing reliance - asserting that the claimant did not genuinely rely on the alleged promise, or that their actions were motivated by other factors.
- Demonstrating no real detriment suffered - contending that the claimant did not suffer a meaningful loss or was already fairly compensated in some way.
- Equitable defences - using defences based on fairness, such as delay in bringing the claim, the claimant’s misconduct such that they do not have ‘clean hands’, or changes the owner made based on a belief that the claim had already been satisfied.
Bringing claims during life and after death
Proprietary Estoppel claims can be brought while the person who made the promise is still alive or after their death:
During life
If the owner changes their mind or attempts to deny the arrangement, a claim can be brought to enforce the promise or seek compensation. This often happens when relationships break down.
After death
If the promise relates to an inheritance or property expected to pass after death, the claim is brought against the deceased’s estate. Claimants must act quickly and provide clear evidence, as these disputes can become complex and emotional.
Timing and delay
There is no specific legal time limit for proprietary estoppel claims, but courts may refuse a claim if it is brought after unreasonable delay. Acting promptly is essential, especially where an estate is being administered, or property may be sold.
Leading Proprietary Estoppel cases
Some of the most influential proprietary estoppel cases and what they established- articles about each case are linked below:
- Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18A showed that long-term assurance about inheritance can amount to a valid promise, even if it is implied rather than stated clearly.
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 confirmed that assurance, reliance, and detriment must be considered together, not in isolation.
- Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463 showed that even inconsistent assurances over time can support a claim, depending on the overall course of conduct.
- Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159 established that the remedy should be proportionate to the detriment suffered, not necessarily the value of the promise.
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27, [2022] 3 WLR 911 showed what type of remedy a claimant can be awarded to satisfy the proprietary estoppel.
- Horsford v Horsford [2020] EWHC 584 (Ch) showed that a previously negotiated agreement relating to the subject matter of a subsequent estoppel claim, is likely to discharge the claim.
- Winter & Anor v Winter & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 699 confirmed that detriment need not be financial.
Summary
Proprietary Estoppel protects people who act in good faith based on promises about property. While flexible and rooted in fairness, it is not automatically granted. A successful claim must clearly show a promise, reliance, and detriment. Similarly, those defending such claims need to provide strong evidence to refute these elements.
Whether you are considering a claim or facing one, getting legal advice is crucial. Informal promises about property can quickly lead to formal legal disputes if not handled properly. If you need advice on a Proprietary Estoppel issue, please contact our Contentious Probate team who will be able to assist.
