Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The second requirement is that the claimant must have suffered some
detriment,something sufficient to render the conduct unconscionable. The
courts are very flexible on what they accept as detriment, it does not have to
be financial, following gillet detriment is not a narrow or technical concept it
only has to be substantial..In Greasley looking after family their whole life
was sufficient enough to to amount to detriment. Additionally in Dwyllyn
spending money on building work was detriment as well.In Davies v Davies
Ms Davies had worked for her parents since she was a child and which she
had been led to believe she would inherit. She later discovered they had
executed wills dividing the farm between all three of their daughters, even
though the other two had never worked on it. Ms Davies claim was, that as
she had worked on the farm for her parents, to her detriment, and on the
understanding that the farm would be left to her on their deaths, they were
estopped from leaving the farm to all three of their children.
The last requirement is that the detriment must be suffered in reliance on
the assurance. In coombers the c did not act in reliance on any assurance as
to property rights therefore he could not claim estoppel if would have
suffered detriment. In contrast to this, mixed motives do not prevent
estoppel(Campbell v griffin).Lord warker stated that the promises relied upon
do not have to be the sole inducement for the conduct,it is sufficient if they
are an inducement. The o does not have to know or intend reliance as long
as his words could reasonably be understood as intented to be taken
seriously (thornier).
If all of these requirements are satisfied then the remedy awarded for
estoppel is up to the discretion of the court. There is the expectation
approach where you give the claimant what he expects(Dillwyn) and the
second approach is to compensate the c for the detriment he has suffered.
The award can never exceed the cs expectations (baker v baker) and there
must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment. The
trend that the courts follow these days is to give the c an award appropriate
to the detriment he was suffered and not what he expected. As coined
in Crabb, a remedy for proprietary estoppel must be 'the minimum to do
justice' for the c. Nevertheless,in some cases like Jennings v Rice the court
has a wider discretion. The High Court had decided that Mr Jennings should
be awarded the sum of 200,000 an estimate of the salary he would have
expected to receive had he been paid for his 15 year services. Mr Jennings
appealed. The Court of Appeal was not asked to consider the finding that
there had been a proprietary estoppel, but the amount of the award. The
Court of Appeal held that in this case the relief for proprietary estoppel