Andrew Grijns v Janice Grijns & Ors

A proprietary estoppel requires a sufficiently clear assurance relating to an interest in land, reasonable reliance, substantial detriment and unconscionability. A statement of present testamentary intention does not suffice unless, objectively and in context, it amounts to a commitment to make the disposition. Detriment must be proved and assessed evaluatively, taking account of countervailing benefits. The court retains a flexible remedial discretion, but a promise may be qualified by changed circumstances, the promisor’s needs and the promisee’s conduct.

A bare licensee cannot exclude the owner from the property. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 may prohibit self-help without converting the licensee’s occupation into possession or making the owner’s entry a trespass. A licence granted for services having monetary value is not an excluded licence.

Andrew Grijns had occupied part of his mother Janice’s London property since 1999 under an informal family arrangement. He claimed a proprietary estoppel equity based on alleged assurances that he could remain in the property indefinitely and would inherit it, or a substantial share of it. He also claimed trespass and equitable compensation arising from Janice and his brothers forcing entry in June 2023.

Janice denied the assurances and counterclaimed for possession, mesne profits and an account of rents received from lettings of a self-contained flat. The principal issues were whether Andrew had established proprietary estoppel; whether the June 2023 entry was unlawful or a trespass; whether reasonable notice had been given; the High Court’s jurisdiction to order possession; and whether Andrew had to account for rental receipts.

1. The proprietary estoppel claim was dismissed. Andrew had not proved the alleged oral assurances, reliance or detriment. The later emails, texts and testamentary arrangements were inconsistent with the alleged earlier promises and principally reflected Andrew’s inheritance and tax concerns.

2. A statement of present intention must be distinguished from a binding commitment to future conduct. Reliance need not be caused solely by the assurance, but must be reasonable. The evidential presumption associated with Greasley v Cooke was confined to a very narrow scope. Detriment had to be proved, had to be substantial, and had to be assessed in the round, including the substantial benefits Andrew had received from his occupation.

3. Even on the assumed facts that assurances had been given and relied upon, the improvements alone would not have constituted sufficient detriment. The countervailing benefits, Janice’s need to sell and rehouse, Andrew’s conduct towards her, and the effect on his siblings meant that resiling from the alleged promise would not have been unconscionable. No relief would therefore have been granted.

4. The alternative claim for equitable compensation failed because it was parasitic upon the failed estoppel claim. The court nevertheless stated obiter that, applying the approach in Re Sharpe, a proprietary right capable of satisfying an established estoppel could subsist in equity before formal relief was declared.

5. Andrew was a bare licensee and had never been entitled to exclude Janice, the legal and beneficial owner, or her invitees. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 did not convert Janice’s otherwise lawful entry into a trespass. In any event, the June 2023 visit was intended as an intervention to negotiate departure and market the property, rather than to enforce possession. The trespass claim was dismissed.

6. The licence was terminable on reasonable notice. By 1 August 2023, more than four months after notice was served, Andrew had had reasonable time to leave and was a trespasser. However, his licence was not an excluded licence because the arrangement contemplated services of monetary value, including managing and caring for the property. The High Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to make the possession order, which was remitted to the County Court. A declaration was made that Andrew had been a trespasser since 1 August 2023 and that Janice was entitled to possession.

7. Mesne profits were ordered at £85,000 per annum from 1 August 2023 until possession. Janice had approved the City Relay lettings and consented to Andrew retaining rents received before 10 May 2023, so no account was ordered for that period. Andrew was ordered, subject to avoiding double recovery, to account for net rents received after 10 May 2023.