Proprietary Estoppel
Thorner v Major
o T was claimant, thought that his uncle Peter Thorner was going to leave his farm in
his will to T. Before his death, T had worked on the farm for a long time, for little
pay, worked on the basis that the farm would be left to him. However, Peter
destroyed the will after falling out with his relatives.
o By statutory rules, the property would pass to the others.
o No contract, no valid will – T claimed proprietary estoppel, managed to get the farm.
2. When does it arise? (Promise-based strand)
Three main requirements
o Thorner
o Representation or assurance made to the claimant
o Reliance on it by the claimant
o Detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance
Not just financially, detriment can be other factors as well
Underlying aim is to ‘prevent unconscionable conduct’
o Gillett v Holt
o If D satisfies the requirements of PE but courts find that it is not ‘unconscionable’ for
D to deny the claim courts will not find that claim satisfies PE
Promise
Test
o Thorner v Major
o A needs to make a promise or assurance that B will acquire a proprietary interest in
relation to A’s land
o Objectively speaking, the promise/assurance must have been reasonably
understood to have been intended to be taken seriously as an assurance to be
relied on
Does not have to be an express promise, can be inferred through conduct
The promise does not have to be capable of giving rise to a contract
o Hoffmann LJ in Walton v Walton
“Intention to create legal relations is a familiar concept in the law of contract. It
means an intention to bring into existence an immediately binding contract; to make
an offer which, when accepted, will constitute a contract, or to accept an offer with
the intention of being bound...
But none of this reasoning applies to equitable estoppel, because it does not look
forward into the future and guess what might happen. It looks backwards from the
moment when the promise falls due to be performed and asks whether, in the
Thorner v Major
o T was claimant, thought that his uncle Peter Thorner was going to leave his farm in
his will to T. Before his death, T had worked on the farm for a long time, for little
pay, worked on the basis that the farm would be left to him. However, Peter
destroyed the will after falling out with his relatives.
o By statutory rules, the property would pass to the others.
o No contract, no valid will – T claimed proprietary estoppel, managed to get the farm.
2. When does it arise? (Promise-based strand)
Three main requirements
o Thorner
o Representation or assurance made to the claimant
o Reliance on it by the claimant
o Detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance
Not just financially, detriment can be other factors as well
Underlying aim is to ‘prevent unconscionable conduct’
o Gillett v Holt
o If D satisfies the requirements of PE but courts find that it is not ‘unconscionable’ for
D to deny the claim courts will not find that claim satisfies PE
Promise
Test
o Thorner v Major
o A needs to make a promise or assurance that B will acquire a proprietary interest in
relation to A’s land
o Objectively speaking, the promise/assurance must have been reasonably
understood to have been intended to be taken seriously as an assurance to be
relied on
Does not have to be an express promise, can be inferred through conduct
The promise does not have to be capable of giving rise to a contract
o Hoffmann LJ in Walton v Walton
“Intention to create legal relations is a familiar concept in the law of contract. It
means an intention to bring into existence an immediately binding contract; to make
an offer which, when accepted, will constitute a contract, or to accept an offer with
the intention of being bound...
But none of this reasoning applies to equitable estoppel, because it does not look
forward into the future and guess what might happen. It looks backwards from the
moment when the promise falls due to be performed and asks whether, in the
