Ann Nilsson & Anor v Collette Cynberg
[2024] EWHC 2164 (Ch)
Jane Steels v Darren Steels & Anor
23 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2985 (Ch)
High Court
A mother let her son and daughter-in-law live rent-free in her house for many years, implying they might inherit it. A court initially said the son and daughter-in-law should get a share of the house. However, a higher court disagreed, saying there wasn't enough proof they suffered because of the mother's promises. The higher court ruled the son and daughter-in-law were not entitled to any share of the house.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a County Court order granting the Respondents (son and daughter-in-law) a 27.5% beneficial interest in the Appellant's (mother's) property based on proprietary estoppel.
- •Respondents lived rent-free in the property for 25 years.
- •Appellant sought possession to downsize due to age and family issues.
- •Recorder found no constructive trust but awarded Respondents a 27.5% share via proprietary estoppel.
- •Appellant appealed the finding of proprietary estoppel and the remedy.
- •Respondents made some payments towards running costs but not substantial improvements.
- •In 2006, Respondents considered buying a house but stayed due to assurances from the deceased and Appellant.
Legal Principles
Proprietary estoppel requires: (1) encouragement to believe in a property interest; (2) detrimental reliance; (3) unconscionability in defeating the expectation.
Megarry & Wade’s The Law of Real Property (9th ed.) at 15-008; Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27; Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140
Detriment in proprietary estoppel is broadly construed, not just financially; 'positioning one’s whole life on the basis of the assurances given and reasonably believed' may suffice.
Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] EWCA Civ 1140
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Insufficient evidence of detrimental reliance on the assurances to establish proprietary estoppel. The Recorder improperly relied on unpleaded detriment (change of life position). The assurances were qualified, allowing for the property's sale under certain circumstances, and the detriment was not proven to stem from reliance on the original assurance. Any equity was satisfied when the appellant gave notice.