(1) Theresa Henry (2) Marie Ann Mitchell v Calixtus Henry (Saint Lucia)

Proprietary estoppel is assessed in the round. Reliance and detriment are conceptually distinct but often intertwined. Detriment is substantial, rather than narrowly financial, and may include opportunities forgone through a course adopted in reliance on an assurance. The court must weigh disadvantages against countervailing benefits.

An equity may bind a registered purchaser as an overriding interest under the Land Registration Act (St Lucia). Relief is not automatically measured by the promised expectation. Proportionality lies at the heart of proprietary estoppel. The court has a wide discretion to satisfy the minimum equity required to do justice, taking account of all the circumstances and any disproportion between expectation and detriment.

In (1) Theresa Henry (2) Marie Ann Mitchell v Calixtus Henry (Saint Lucia) [2010] UKPC 3, the respondent claimed an undivided half share in agricultural land. Its former owner had promised him the share if he cultivated the land and cared for her, but later sold it to the first appellant. The second appellant's separate half share was undisputed.

The trial judge found that the respondent had relied on the promises but held that he had suffered no detriment because he had enjoyed rent-free occupation and the land's produce. The Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion, held that the resulting equity was an overriding interest, and declared the respondent owner of the entire disputed half share. The issues before the Board concerned the proper assessment of detriment, the effect of the registered disposition and the proportionate relief required to satisfy any equity.

1. Disposition. Sir Jonathan Parker, delivering the Board's judgment, advised that the appeal should be allowed and the Court of Appeal's order set aside. The respondent was declared entitled to one half of the first appellant's undivided half share, rather than the whole of that share.
2. Detriment and unconscionability. Following the approach in Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 and Jennings v Rice [2003] P. & C. R. 8, proprietary estoppel had to be considered in the round. Reliance and detriment, although distinct in the abstract, were often intertwined. The trial judge misdirected himself by listing the respondent's benefits without weighing them against the disadvantages caused by his reliance. The Court of Appeal also erred by treating comparison between advantage and detriment as impermissible. The Board therefore assessed detriment afresh. By remaining on the land, cultivating it, providing the promisor with food and caring for her, the respondent had forgone opportunities for a better life elsewhere. That detriment was not outweighed by rent-free occupation or the benefits of cultivation. An equity had therefore arisen.
3. Registered title. Given the respondent's actual occupation, his equity was an overriding interest under section 28 of the Land Registration Act (St Lucia) and bound the first appellant. The Board left open the possibility that the particular circumstances of a third-party purchase might sometimes require reassessment of the extent of an equity. No such case had been pleaded or pursued at trial, so it could not arise on this appeal.
4. Relief. The Court of Appeal's conclusion that it lacked power to consider proportionality was a fundamental misconception. As illustrated by Jennings v Rice [2003] P. & C. R. 8 and Campbell v Griffin (2001) 82 P & CR DG23, the court enjoys a wide discretion and must achieve the minimum equity required to do justice. Proportionality permeates the doctrine, and the promised expectation may be reduced where all the circumstances require it. The appropriate relief was one half of the promised half share.

1. Privy Council: In (1) Theresa Henry (2) Marie Ann Mitchell v Calixtus Henry (Saint Lucia) [2010] UKPC 3, the Board allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal's order and declared the respondent entitled to one half of the first appellant's undivided half share.
2. Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Lucia): The court allowed the respondent's appeal on proprietary estoppel. It found detrimental reliance, held that the equity was an overriding interest under the Land Registration Act (St Lucia), and declared him owner of the entire disputed half share.
3. Trial court: Cottle J dismissed the challenges based on incapacity, adverse possession and proprietary estoppel. Although he found a promise and reliance, he held that the respondent had suffered no detriment and that the first appellant's registered title as purchaser for value should not be disturbed.