Thorner v Major & Ors

Thorner v Major & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the deceased's conduct and statements, including the 1990 incident, did not amount to a clear and unequivocal assurance intended to be relied upon by the claimant, and thus the requirements for proprietary estoppel were not satisfied. The appeal was allowed and the claimant's proprietary estoppel claim failed.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: David Thorner; Defendant / Appellant: Ena Joyce Major; Defendant / Appellant: Winifred Curtis; Defendant / Appellant: Lesley Dawn Heusen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; proprietary estoppel claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Testamentary Dispositions, Intestacy, Assurances and Reliance, Unconscionability
Equity Succession Law Property Law Proprietary Estoppel Testamentary Dispositions Intestacy Assurances and Reliance Unconscionability

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Thorner

Claimant / Respondent

Ena Joyce Major

Defendant / Appellant

Winifred Curtis

Defendant / Appellant

Lesley Dawn Heusen

Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the facts established a proprietary estoppel entitling the claimant to inherit Steart Farm
  2. 2 Whether the deceased's conduct amounted to a clear and unequivocal assurance intended to be relied upon
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's reliance and detriment were sufficient to satisfy the equity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the deceased's conduct and statements, including the 1990 incident, did not amount to a clear and unequivocal assurance intended to be relied upon by the claimant, and thus the requirements for proprietary estoppel were not satisfied. The appeal was allowed and the claimant's proprietary estoppel claim failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; proprietary estoppel claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The order granting the claimant Steart Farm and associated assets is set aside.