Campbell v Griffin & Ors

Proprietary estoppel may arise where an assurance induces substantial detriment, even though friendship or a sense of responsibility also influenced the claimant. Once assurances and conduct capable of supporting an inference of inducement are established, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove reliance. The assurance need only be an inducement, not the sole inducement.

Detriment is assessed broadly when deciding whether repudiation of the assurance would be unconscionable. It is not confined to precisely quantified expenditure. The remedy must satisfy the equity proportionately and may reflect competing claims, benefits already received, administrative practicality and the desirability of a clean break. The court may award a fixed sum secured on the property instead of the promised interest.

The claimant entered an elderly couple's home as a lodger and gradually became their live-in carer. From about 1987 they repeatedly assured him that he would have a home for life. His unpaid care, personal assistance and expenditure increased substantially as they became frail, but a testamentary gift of a life interest failed because the house passed to the surviving joint tenant.

Mr Recorder Hall dismissed the claimant's proprietary estoppel claim in Worthing County Court and ordered possession for the executors. He found that the claimant acted from friendship and responsibility rather than in reliance on the assurances, and that his conduct did not constitute sufficient detriment.

The claimant sought permission to appeal and, if granted, appealed. The central questions were whether he had relied upon the assurances to his detriment and, if so, how the resulting equity should be satisfied.

1. Permission to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed unanimously. Robert Walker LJ gave the leading judgment. Thorpe LJ and the President agreed on all issues and with the proposed disposition. The recorder's order was set aside.

2. The claimant had suffered substantial detriment. His sustained unpaid care went far beyond what an ordinary friendly lodger would provide. It included disrupted work and sleep, assistance with personal needs and incontinence, and significant expenditure. A live-in carer providing comparable services would expect a substantial wage, free board and lodging, and reimbursement. Detriment was not confined to quantifiable financial loss. It formed part of the broad inquiry into whether repudiating the assurance would be unconscionable.

3. The recorder had also erred on reliance. Once promises and conduct from which inducement could be inferred were established, the burden shifted to the defendants to show that the claimant did not rely upon the promises. By 1990 at the latest, the claimant's conduct went well beyond that of a friendly lodger, creating a strong presumption that the assurances influenced him. His friendship, responsibility and willingness to respond to immediate human need did not rebut that presumption. An assurance need only be an inducement; it need not be the sole inducement. Courts should treat hypothetical answers cautiously and should not penalise an honest witness for acknowledging mixed motives.

4. The resulting equity had not been extinguished by the claimant's rent-free occupation. Nevertheless, a life interest in the entire house would have been disproportionate and administratively inconvenient. It could delay administration of the estates, prejudice other beneficiaries, increase the effect of the local authority's charge and create an expensive continuing trust of land. The court's wide remedial discretion required the minimum equity necessary to do justice and permitted regard to the desirability of a clean break.

5. The claimant was declared entitled to £35,000 secured on the property. He was required to give vacant possession so that the house could be sold. Interest on the award would begin 56 days after vacant possession. Although priority was probably academic, Robert Walker LJ considered that the claimant's equity had priority over the local authority's charge because it arose before the couple entered residential care and was supported by his actual occupation.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted and appeal allowed unanimously in [2001] EWCA Civ 990. The order below was set aside and the claimant was awarded £35,000 secured on the property, subject to giving vacant possession.

2. Worthing County Court: Mr Recorder Hall dismissed the proprietary estoppel claim on 27 March 2000 and ordered possession of the house on the executors' counterclaim.