Gillett v Holt
Repeated assurances that a farm worker would inherit a farm, relied on for decades, gave rise to an estoppel even though a will is by nature revocable.
Facts
Geoffrey Gillett left school as a teenager to work for Kenneth Holt, a wealthy farmer, and worked for him for about 40 years. Over that time, Mr Holt repeatedly assured Mr Gillett, often on public occasions, that he would inherit the farming business, and made wills in his favour. Relying on these assurances, Mr Gillett and his wife worked for low wages, did not seek other opportunities, and devoted their lives to the business. Mr Holt later fell out with Mr Gillett, dismissed him and made a new will leaving everything to someone else.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Gillett was entitled to relief on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Robert Walker LJ said that the doctrine should not be treated as subdivided into watertight compartments, and that the fundamental principle is that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct. Although a will is revocable, repeated assurances that a person will inherit can give rise to an estoppel where they are intended to be relied on and are relied on. Detriment is not a narrow or technical concept, and need not be expenditure of money, as long as it is substantial. Mr Gillett was awarded the freehold of one of the farms and a sum of money.
Related cases on contracts for land and proprietary estoppel
- Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd [2008] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 WLR 1752
- Crabb v Arun District Council [1976] Ch 179
- Davies v Davies [2016] EWCA Civ 463
- Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862) 4 De GF & J 517
- Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson [1995] 1 WLR 1567
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890
- Inwards v Baker [1965] 2 QB 29
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
