Thorner v Major
An assurance need not be express, as long as it is clear enough in its context, and a man who worked unpaid on his father's cousin's farm for decades was entitled to it.
Facts
David Thorner worked without pay on the Somerset farm of his father's cousin, Peter Thorner, for nearly 30 years. Peter never expressly promised to leave the farm to David, but in 1990 he handed David a bonus notice relating to two life insurance policies, saying 'that's for my death duties'. David understood this, and Peter's later remarks and conduct, as an assurance that he would inherit the farm. Peter made a will leaving the farm to David, but later destroyed it, and died intestate in 2005, so the farm passed to other relatives.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that David was entitled to the farm on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Lord Walker said that the assurance must be clear enough, but what amounts to sufficient clarity depends on context. The assurance need not be express, and Peter's remarks and conduct, understood in their context by a person who knew him, were an assurance that David would inherit the farm, on which David reasonably relied. The property was also sufficiently identified, even though the extent of the farm had changed over time. The House distinguished Cobbe v Yeoman's Row as a commercial case.
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.
