Ottey v Grundy

Ottey v Grundy

The judge was entitled to find that proprietary estoppel arose in favour of Miss Ottey based on clear assurances and detrimental reliance. The detriment was sufficient and out of the ordinary. The remedy granted was proportionate, taking into account the expectation, the duration of the relationship, and the circumstances of separation. There was no error in the quantum of relief compared to a claim under the 1975 Act. Both the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/cross Appellant: Dorothy Ottey; Defendant/appellant: Mark Grundy (Executor of the late Timothy Andreae)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Testamentary Promises, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
Equity Succession Proprietary Estoppel Testamentary Promises Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorothy Ottey

Claimant/cross Appellant

Mark Grundy (Executor of the late Timothy Andreae)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel arose in favour of Miss Ottey based on assurances by Mr Andreae
  2. 2 Whether the detriment suffered by Miss Ottey was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of proprietary estoppel
  3. 3 Whether the remedy granted was proportionate to the detriment and expectation

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that proprietary estoppel arose in favour of Miss Ottey based on clear assurances and detrimental reliance. The detriment was sufficient and out of the ordinary. The remedy granted was proportionate, taking into account the expectation, the duration of the relationship, and the circumstances of separation. There was no error in the quantum of relief compared to a claim under the 1975 Act. Both the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Miss Ottey to receive £50,000 from the estate and, if the Jamaica apartment is not transferred to her, a further £50,000