Thorner v Major
2009 · [2009] UKHL 18, [2009] 1 WLR 776
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- David worked unpaid on his cousin Peter's farm for nearly thirty years. Peter hinted, but never said in terms, that David would get the farm. Peter died without a valid will.
- Issue
- Was the assurance clear enough to found a ?
- Held
- Yes. The House of Lords held that the assurance was clear enough in its context, was meant to be relied on, and was relied on to David's detriment. David was entitled to the farm.
- Principle
- An assurance that is clear enough in its context, relied on to the claimant's detriment, founds a proprietary estoppel.
- Why it matters
- It is the modern leading case on proprietary estoppel and inheritance promises.
Words and Latin in this note
- Proprietary estoppel
- An equity that arises when an owner leads another to believe he has or will get a right in property, and the other relies on it to his detriment. The court gives the minimum remedy needed. Open the note.
- Licence by estoppel
- An equity that arises where the owner encourages another to act to their detriment, believing they have or will have a right in the land. The court gives whatever remedy is just. Open the note.
- Estoppel
- A rule that stops a person from going back on something they said or did when another person relied on it. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.