In the case of Grijns v Grijns & Ors [2025] EWHC 1413 (Ch) (12 June 2025) Master Bowles gave judgment refusing a claim in proprietary estoppel brought by the son of a property owner for a right to either own the property, or at least have a right to occupy it indefinitely, based on promises allegedly made to him by his parents, which he said he had relied on to his detriment.
Master Bowles sets out a good summary of the law in relation to proprietary estoppel claims at paragraphs 173 to 191 of his judgment, and to summarise further it can be described as follows:
1. a proprietary estoppel will arise where:
- a person is promised or assured that they will receive property in the future, or that the property is already theirs; and
- in reliance upon the promise, or assurance, that person has acted to their detriment; and
- it is unconscionable for the person making the promise (or their estate), to go back on the promise or assurance,
2. In those circumstances an 'equity' will have arisen in favour of person the promise or assurance was made to, and, in satisfaction of that 'equity' the court “will craft a remedy which seeks to deal with the unconscionability created”.
3. The promise, or assurance:
- must be of such a sufficient quality, or calibre, as to be reasonably understood as having been seriously intended to be relied upon.
- It does not matter if the promisor did not subjectively mean for the promise to be taken seriously or relied upon.
- The promise or assurance must also be a statement of commitment as to future conduct rather than a mere intention to do something.
- the context, or circumstances, in which the promise was given may bear upon the way that the promise can be reasonably understood. For example it may in the right circumstances that a promise will only take effect if the relationship or requirements of the parties remain as they are at the time of the promise.
4. In relation to the reliance on the promise/assurance:
- It must be reasonable.
- The promise/assurance does not have to be the sole cause of the conduct said to be reliant on the promise but just one of the causes.
- may be presumed where there is little evidence, given the serious nature of the promise/assurance made, albeit that presumption can be readily displaced.
5. As to the requirement for the reliance to be detrimental:
- detriment is determined when the promisor resiles from the promise, or assurance.
- The detriment must be substantial and take into account any benefits received by the promise from their reliance.
- It is not “a technical, or spread sheet exercise”, but should take into account all relevant matters, financial, or otherwise.
6. Permeating the entire doctrine of proprietary estoppel is the overriding factor of unconscionability.
- If, standing back from the circumstances of the case the conduct complained of does not “shock the conscience of the court”, then it cannot succeed.
- External factors may be relevant such as the promisor later falling on hard times and needing to use the property to pay creditors or for social care, or the promisee’s conduct may have behaved badly after the promise was made.
7. Where proprietary estoppel is established, the court has a flexible and pragmatic discretion as to how best to remedy the unconscionability.
- The starting point is to hold the promisor to his promise.
- If, however, specific enforcement of the promise is out of all proportion to the detriment which has been incurred, then the remedy may be to put right the disproportionality between the detriment and what was promised. Considering this disproportionality must take into account the non-financial element of the detriment.
- Where the promise and detriment are 'almost contractual' there will be the strongest equitable reason for full enforcement.
- The remedy is not binary and may take into account other relevant factors, such as the needs of medical, or nursing care, “where full enforcement would be to preclude the promisor from giving effect to other powerful moral and equitable claims upon his bounty and where, therefore, full enforcement, rather than remedying unconscionability, would cause it”.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
