Julie Mate v Shirley Claire Mate & Ors

Proprietary estoppel requires an assurance sufficiently clear to justify reliance. General statements that family members will be financially looked after, without specifying the benefit or its allocation, may be too vague to raise an equity.

Where services are freely accepted in circumstances showing that the recipient knew they were not provided gratuitously, unjust enrichment may arise even though no fee was agreed. The value of services is assessed objectively. Where the services resemble land promotion and remuneration would ordinarily be commission-based, a commission may be appropriate rather than an hourly rate.

The claimant worked with a planning consultant to promote family farmland through the local planning process, securing its release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing. The land was later sold to a developer for £9 million.

She alleged that her mother had promised that the sale proceeds would be shared equally among the mother and her five children. She claimed proprietary estoppel against her mother and brothers, and alternatively restitution for services provided in securing the development opportunity.

The court had to determine whether a sufficiently clear assurance had been made, and whether the defendants had been unjustly enriched by accepting the claimant’s work without payment.

1. Proprietary estoppel. The alleged statements that the daughters would be looked after financially, or that sale proceeds would be shared, did not identify the claimant’s entitlement or the manner of distribution with sufficient clarity. The claimant’s contemporaneous correspondence was inconsistent with the existence of a promise of equal shares. No proprietary estoppel equity therefore arose.
2. The fact that the claimant expected to benefit from the project did not establish a sufficiently clear promise. Since the assurance requirement failed, reliance and detriment did not require determination. The proprietary estoppel claim was dismissed.
3. Unjust enrichment. The defendants received the benefit of the claimant’s planning and land-promotion services. They knew what she was doing, knew or ought to have known that she expected remuneration, and had opportunities to reject the benefit but did not do so. The enrichment was therefore at her expense and unjust.
4. The appropriate measure was the objective market value of the services, not the value of the end product or the entire increase in land value. The claimant had performed a role akin to a land promoter and had assumed the risk of receiving nothing if the project failed. A commission-based valuation was therefore appropriate.
5. The court assessed the uplift in value at £8.7 million and valued the claimant’s services at 7.5 per cent of that uplift, producing an award of £652,500. The claimant was not additionally entitled to recover the planning consultant’s invoices, since no agreement had made the defendants responsible for them.
6. The unjust enrichment claim was allowed against Andrew and Robert. The judgment dismissed the proprietary estoppel claim and assessed the value of the claimant’s services at £652,500.