Thorner v. Majors et al., (2009) 397 N.R. 150 (HL)

• Case Date: January 21, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2009), 397 N.R. 150 (HL)

Thorner v. Majors (2009), 397 N.R. 150 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] N.R. TBEd. NO.034

Thorner (appellant) v. Majors and others (respondents)

([2009] UKHL 18)

Indexed As: Thorner v. Majors et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

March 25, 2009.

Summary:

David, a farmer, did substantial work without pay on his cousin Peter's farm for nearly 30 years. David claimed that Peter had indirectly encouraged him to believe that he would inherit the farm and that he acted in reliance upon that assurance (i.e., no express representation was ever made). Peter died intestate. David claimed that by reason of the assurance and reliance, Peter's estate was estopped from denying that he had acquired the beneficial interest in the farm (i.e., on the basis of proprietary estoppel). The trial judge found in David's favour, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision. David appealed.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge.

Estoppel - Topic 1324

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence or encouragement - Proprietary estoppel - Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe of the House of Lords referred to the three main elements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel as follows: "a representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant; and detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance" - See paragraph 29.

Estoppel - Topic 1324

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence or encouragement - Proprietary estoppel - David, a farmer, did substantial work without pay on his cousin Peter's farm for nearly 30 years - David claimed that Peter had indirectly encouraged him to believe that he would inherit the farm and that he acted in reliance upon that assurance (i.e., no express representation was ever made) - Peter died intestate - David claimed that by reason of the assurance and reliance, Peter's estate was estopped from denying that he had acquired the beneficial interest in the farm (i.e., on the basis of proprietary estoppel) - The trial judge found in David's favour, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision - David appealed - Peter's Estate argued that the assurances were not "clear and equivocal" such as to found proprietary estoppel, an in any event, the claim failed because the land to which the assurance related was inadequately identified, or had undergone changes (e.g., changed in size) - The House of Lords allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge - The court held that what was "clear and unequivocal" was largely dependent on the context and, in this case, the trial judge properly found that a case for the application of the doctrine or proprietary estoppel had been established - Further, changes in the character or extent of the property in question were relevant to the relief which equity would provide but did not exclude such a remedy where there was still an identifiable property - Here the nature of the interest to be received by David was clear, it was the farm as it existed on Peter's death.

Estoppel - Topic 1324

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence or encouragement - Proprietary estoppel - In Yeoman's Row Management Ltd. et al. v. Cobbe (House of Lords), at paragraph 14, Lord Scott of Foscote, stated that "... An 'estoppel' bars the object of it from asserting some fact or facts, or, sometimes, something that is a mixture of fact and law, that stands in the way of some right claimed by the person entitled to the benefit of the estoppel. The estoppel becomes a 'proprietary' estoppel - a sub-species of a 'promissory' estoppel - if the right claimed is a proprietary right, usually a right to or over land but, in principle, equally available in relation to chattels or choses in action" - The House of Lords, per Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, stated that "I wish to add a brief postscript as to Cobbe. It will be apparent from this opinion that I have some difficulty with Lord Scott's observation (in para. 14 of his opinion in that case) that proprietary estoppel is a sub-species of promissory estoppel. But the terminology and taxonomy of this part of the law are, I acknowledge, far from uniform ..." - See paragraph 67.

Cases Noticed:

Crabb v. Arun District Council, [1976] Ch. 179, refd to. [paras. 12, 61, 78].

Gillett v. Holt, [2001] Ch. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 18, 53, 88].

Ramsden v. Dyson (1866), L.R. 1 H.L. 129, refd to. [paras. 20, 31, 84].

Gissing v. Gissing, [1971] A.C. 886 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Basham, Re, [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1498 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 20, 31, 63].

Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co., [1919] S.C.(H.L.) 35, refd to. [para. 27].

Yeoman's Row Management Ltd. et al. v. Cobbe, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752; 393 N.R. 104; [2008] UKHL 55, refd to. [paras. 31, 90].

JT Development Ltd. v. Quinn, [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 257, refd to. [para. 50].

Uglow v. Uglow, [2004] W.T.L.R. 1183, refd to. [para. 50].

Sidney Bolsom Investment Trust Ltd. v. Karmios (E.) & Co. (London) Ltd., [1956] 1 Q.B. 529, refd to. [paras. 50, 78].

Dann v. Spurrier (1802), 7 Ves. 231 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [paras. 55, 84].

Carmichael v. National Power plc, [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2042, refd to. [paras. 58, 82].

Layton v. Martin, [1986] 2 F.L.R. 227, refd to. [para. 63].

Citizen's Bank of Louisiana v. First National Bank of New Orleans (1873), L.R. 6 H.L. 352, refd to. [para. 67].

Taylors Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co., [1982] 1 Q.B. 133 (Ch. D.), refd to. [paras. 67, 78].

Moorgate Mercantile Co. v. Twitchings, [1976] Q.B. 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gray, Kevin, and Gray, Susan Francis, Elements of Land Law (5th Ed. 2009), para. 9.2.8 [para. 29].

Gardner, Simon, An Introduction to Land Law (2007), p. 101, para. 7.1.1 [para. 29].

McFarlane, Ben, and Robertson, Andrew, Death of Proprietary Estoppel, [2008] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial L.Q. 449, generally [para. 31].

Megarry, Robert E., and Wade, H. William R., The Law of Real Property (7th Ed. 2008), para. 16-001 [para. 29].

Snell's Equity (31st Ed. 2005), paras. 10-16 to 10-19 [para. 29].

Treitel, Guenter, The Law of Contract (12th Ed. 2007), para. 3-144 [para. 54].

Counsel:

John McDonnell, Q.C., and Michael Jefferis (Instructed by Stephen Gisby & Co), for the appellants;

Andrew Simmonds, Q.C., and Penelope Reed (Instructed by Gould & Swayne), for the respondents.

Agents:

[Not disclosed.]

This appeal was heard on January 21, 2009, by Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was delivered on March 25, 2009, when the following opinions were filed:

Lord Hoffmann - see paragraphs 1 to 10;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 11 to 21;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry - see paragraphs 22 to 28;

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe - see paragraphs 29 to 67;

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury - see paragraphs 68 to 104.