Jennings v Rice
The remedy for proprietary estoppel must be proportionate to the detriment suffered, and need not fulfil the claimant's full expectation.
Facts
Mr Jennings worked as a gardener and odd job man for Mrs Royle, an elderly widow, from 1970. Over time he began to work for her without pay, and he looked after her as she became frail, staying overnight at her house to provide care and security. She told him that he would be all right and that 'this will all be yours one day'. She died intestate, leaving an estate worth about £1.285 million, including her house, which was worth about £435,000. Mr Jennings claimed the whole estate, or at least the house.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld an award of £200,000. Robert Walker LJ said that, where the assurances and the claimant's reliance on them have a consensual character falling not far short of a contract, the court is likely to fulfil the claimant's expectation. But where the expectation is uncertain, or is out of all proportion to the detriment suffered, the court must take a principled approach to the remedy. The most essential requirement is that there must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment. £200,000 was a fair amount, being sufficient to buy a house and reflecting the cost of the care he had provided.
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
- Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
- Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
- Habberfield v Habberfield [2019] EWCA Civ 890
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.
