What the courts have decided
Proprietary estoppel has been shaped by a series of family farming cases that reached the highest courts.
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18
A cousin worked unpaid on a Somerset farm for nearly 30 years on the strength of hints and indirect remarks that the farm would be his. The House of Lords held that the assurance only needs to be clear enough in its context. It does not have to be a formal promise. He was awarded the farm.
Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27
A son worked on his parents’ farm for over 30 years at low wages, then fell out with them and was cut out of their wills. The Supreme Court confirmed that the starting point for the remedy is what was promised, and that the court may reduce the award only where giving full effect to the promise would be out of proportion to the loss suffered.
Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210
A farm worker was repeatedly assured over nearly 40 years that he would inherit the farm, and organised his whole working life around it. The Court of Appeal held that the promise, the reliance and the detriment must be looked at in the round rather than as separate hurdles, and that unconscionability is the heart of the doctrine. He was awarded the farmhouse, land and a cash sum.