Proprietary estoppel: expectation or reliance?

In Baker v Baker ((1993) 25 H.L.R. 408, CA (Eng)) a father gave his son and daughter-in-law a large part of the purchase price of a house. Part of the arrangement was that he would have a room in the house to live in for the rest of his life. The father and son fell out and the father left the house. Return was out of the question. The father’s proprietary estoppel claim succeeded. At first instance, the son and his wife were ordered to repay the gift. The son and wife appealed the size of the award. The Court of Appeal agreed that the wrong approach to relief had been taken. The father had clearly intended a gift of the money. The relief should focus on the frustrated expectation (accommodation for life). The case was remitted to the first instance court for it to decide on the size of the monetary award needed to compensate for the frustrated expectation.

The father had, in the meantime, been given public sector housing at no cost to himself. There was discussion as to whether it would be appropriate to reduce the size of the eventual award to reflect this.

Advertisements

One Response to “Proprietary estoppel: expectation or reliance?”

  1. hao Says:

    Thank you for your article to help me so much.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: