Claimant moving into house as lodger – Landlords becoming increasingly frail and dependent upon claimant – Landlords assuring claimant of home for life – Claimant claiming proprietary estoppel in respect of property after death of landlords – Whether claimant acting upon assurances made to him to his detriment – Judge finding claimant not acting to his detriment – Appeal allowed
In 1978 the claimant moved into 26 St Botolph’s Road, Worthing, West Sussex, as a lodger. The rent was £10 per week. The property was owned and occupied by A and his wife, who were 70-years-old and childless. For the first five years after 1978, the claimant’s position in the household was that of a lodger who got on very well with his landlords. However, after five years or so, A and his wife became increasingly frail, and they began to depend upon the claimant. The claimant helped more and more with household chores and shopping, sometimes at his own expense. The level of his assistance to A and his wife progressively increased until his position became that of a carer. However, he was never a full-time carer as he worked most of the time, and in the last period before A and his wife went into residential care they had home help. From about 1987, A and his wife frequently told the claimant that, whatever happened, he had a home for life.
In early 1992 A and his wife were taken into residential care, although they returned to the property for a short period. On 15 December 1993 A made a codicil to his will leaving the claimant a life interest in the house. However, that gift failed, as A was survived by his wife, who took the house by survivorship. After A’s wife died, the claimant commenced proceedings claiming a proprietary estoppel in respect of the property, in which he was still living, against the executors of A and his wife’s estates and the local authority, which had a statutory charge on the property under the Health and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.
The judge, referring to Re Basham (deceased) [1986] 1 WLR 1498, directed himself that three separate ingredients were required to make good the claimant’s claim: (i) assurances must have been made to the claimant by A and his wife; (ii) the claimant must have acted upon those assurances to his detriment; and (iii) in doing so, he must have relied upon those assurances. The judge concluded that although assurances had been made, the claimant had not acted to his detriment and had not relied upon the assurances. The judge dismissed the claim and made an order for possession. The claimant appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
1. The judge’s conclusion that the claimant had not acted to his detriment was against the weight of the evidence. The chronology of the case covered a period of almost 30 years, and the pattern of events had changed markedly as the couple had become increasingly frail. A lodger did not normally cook his landlords’ evening meals, delay going to work, go short of sleep in order to look after them, or clean up after their incontinence. That was the case even if the lodger was paying a low rent or no rent. The court could take judicial notice that a live-in carer, looking after a couple as frail as A and his wife, would expect to be paid a substantial wage in addition to free board and lodging, and would expect to be fully reimbursed for all out-of-pocket expenditure. Accordingly, from some time in the 1980s or from 1990 at the latest, the claimant had suffered and accepted detriment in his devoted care of A and his wife. The judge had also erred in relation to the issue of reliance. The assurances given by A and his wife were an inducement to the claimant’s conduct from at least 1990.
2. Accordingly, it fell to the court to exercise its discretion in deciding how the claimant’s equity should be satisfied. There were considerable objections to the proposal that the claimant be granted a life interest in the property for so long as he wished to live there. Such an order would be disproportionate and administratively inconvenient. Taking those and other relevant circumstances into account, it was appropriate to award a fixed sum of £35,000 charged on the property, on the basis that the claimant would give up possession in order for it to be sold: Gillett v Holt [2000] 3 WLR 815 considered.
Timothy Sisley (instructed by Marsh Ferriman & Cheale, of Worthing) appeared for the claimant; Charles Holbech (instructed by Bennett Griffin & Partners, of Worthing) appeared for the first to third defendants; William Webster (instructed by the solicitor to West Sussex County Council) appeared for the fourth defendants.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
