Plaintiff and deceased living together – Plaintiff assisted in running of business – Deceased promising to leave house and business to plaintiff in will – Plaintiff working for pocket money only in reliance on this promise – Will failed to leave property to plaintiff – Claim of proprietary estoppel against estate – High Court holding that plaintiff failed to show he relied on promise made to him – Court of Appeal allowing appeal
The plaintiff and the deceased lived together from 1971. In 1975 the plaintiff left the deceased for about a year and then, at the request of the deceased, returned to live with him at 14 North Pole Road, London W10. In 1980 the deceased bought a cafe with a flat above and asked the plaintiff to help him run the cafe. The deceased promised the plaintiff that he would leave him a house and business and made a will leaving him the flat, cafe and freehold of 14 North Pole Road. The plaintiff helped the deceased in running the cafe, but was paid no more than pocket money.
Some 18 months later the deceased sold the cafe and bought a bungalow at 22 The Promenade, Peacehaven, Sussex. There the plaintiff and the deceased lived together and the plaintiff continued to act as the deceased’s chauffeur and companion. They moved again several times and at the deceased’s death on September 14 1987 they lived at the Royal Hotel, Barmouth. The deceased had told the plaintiff that he would update his will to substitute the Royal Hotel as the plaintiff’s inheritance, but he had not. All the plaintiff received under the will was a car and some furniture. He made unsuccessful claims against the estate relying on proprietary estoppel and then appealed. The case was heard by Judge Hywel Moseley QC on May 22 1992.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. For a claim in proprietary estoppel to succeed it had to be shown that one party had made promises to the other in reliance on which that other had acted to his detriment. There had to be a sufficient link between the promises relied upon and the conduct which constituted the detriment: see Eves v Eves [1975] 1 WLR 1338; Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638.
2. The promises relied upon did not have to be the sole inducement for the conduct, it was sufficient if they were an inducement: see Amalgamated Investment Property Co Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1982] QB 84.
3. Once it had been established that promises were made, and there had been conduct by the plaintiff of such a nature that inducement might be inferred then the burden of proof shifted to the defendants to establish that he did not rely on the promises: see Greasley v Cooke [1986] 1 WLR 1306.
4. In the present case the plaintiff’s conduct in helping the deceased run the cafe and then two hotels for little more than pocket money was conduct from which his reliance on the deceased’s clear promises could be inferred.
5. The defendants had failed to establish that the plaintiff did not rely on those promises and the judge fell into error in holding that the plaintiff did not rely on the promises to his detriment.
Hugh Bennett QC and Cenydd Howells (instructed by James & Sarch) appeared for the plaintiff; Richard Oughton (instructed by Morris Bates & Godwin, of Aberystwyth) appeared for the defendants.
