Proprietary estoppel: when reliance on an assurance is presumed

When a representation is made that is intended to influence the mind of the recipient and would have influenced the mind of a reasonable person, there is a presumption that any possible detrimental actions were performed in reliance on the representation. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show that there is no causal link between the representation and the alleged detrimental reliance.

In Greasley v Cooke ([1980] 1 WLR 1306, CA (Eng)) Miss Cooke had started to work as a live-in maid for a Mr Greasley. After 10 years she began to cohabit with one of the sons. She lived at the property for many years and looked after both the son and his mentally-ill sister. She had received assurances that she would be able to live at the property for the rest of her life. She sought a declaration that she was entitled to live at the property rent-free for the rest of her life. She succeeded in the Court of Appeal. The question was whether there was a causal link between the promises made to her and her actions in staying at the property. Would she have done so anyway? The English Court of Appeal held that once it is shown that the promises were intended to influence the judgment of a reasonable person then the causal link is presumed to exist. The onus is then on the defence to show that there had been no causal link.

Michael Lower


Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “Proprietary estoppel: when reliance on an assurance is presumed”

  1. FrauIsa Says:

    Hi Professor Lower! Thank you for the helpful blog. I am studying GDL in the UK and I’d like to clarify on a point regarding “presumption of reliance” in proprietary estoppel. My course materials seem to say that if the defendant has made an assurance adn the claim has acted in a detrimental way, then there is presumption of reliance (i.e., skipping the causation link?); the materials attributes this to Greasley. But in your blog, you seem to say the presumption should arise when the defendant has made a representation that is intended to influence the claimant or would have influenced a reasonable person. I have had a look at the judgment and what you said is what Lord Denning said in Greasley. I suspected the designer of the course materials has quoted from Law Teacher here: Could you please help clarify on this? Thank you very much!

  2. FrauIsa Says:

    An immediate follow-up to my previous question on presumptio of reliance, I found out that what my course material says – that presumption of reliance arises when the defendant makes an assurance to the claimant and the claimant acts in a detrimental way (ie, skipping the establishment of causation) – is actually attributable to Coombes v Smith [1987] 1 FLR 352 at 366C according to this Practical Law article (, NOT Greasley (as in my course materials and Law Teacher).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: