Major shareholder of respondent company inviting second appellant to reside in property owned by respondent — Whether company estopped from seeking possession of property — Appeal allowed
In 1996, the first appellant began a relationship with the major shareholder in the respondent company (A). A subsequently invited the second appellant, who was the first appellant’s mother, to live in a property owned by the respondent. In 2000, the relationship between the first appellant and A ended acrimoniously and the respondent sought possession of the property.
The first appellant moved into the property with the second appellant, contending that the company was estopped from seeking possession on the basis that A had assured the second appellant that she could stay in the property for as long as she liked, and that she had acted to her detriment on that assurance.
The respondent applied for summary judgment. The application was initially dismissed on the ground that it was arguable that A had granted an irrevocable licence to the second appellant and that the appellants did have a reasonable chance of establishing the estoppel. However, that finding was overturned at appeal. The appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The court had to proceed on the basis that the alleged assurance had been given. The conduct of the second appellant could amount to detriment sufficient to found a claim of estoppel. There was a sufficient chance that the appellants could establish their case, and the matter should proceed to a full trial of the issues.
Andrew Glennie (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared for the appellants; Kirk Reynolds QC and Norman Joss (instructed by Stephen Beverley Associates) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
