Thorner v Curtis & Ors

Thorner v Curtis & Ors

Peter Thorner's words and conduct over many years gave rise to a proprietary estoppel in favour of David Thorner. David reasonably expected to inherit Steart Farm, acted to his detriment in reliance on that expectation, and it would be unconscionable for the estate to devolve under the Intestacy Rules. The minimum equity necessary to do justice is to award David Steart Farm, its land, buildings, live and dead stock, and associated chattels, but not Peter's non-agricultural assets.

Parties
Claimant: David Thorner; Defendant: Winifred Curtis; Defendant: Ena Joyce Major; Defendant: Lesley Dawn Heusen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery (proprietary Estoppel) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Testamentary Freedom, Intestacy, Unconscionability, Equitable Relief
Equity Succession Property Law Proprietary Estoppel Testamentary Freedom Intestacy Unconscionability Equitable Relief

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Thorner

Claimant

Winifred Curtis

Defendant

Ena Joyce Major

Defendant

Lesley Dawn Heusen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery (proprietary Estoppel) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant, David Thorner, is entitled to Steart Farm or Peter Thorner's estate by proprietary estoppel
  2. 2 Whether the elements of proprietary estoppel (assurance, reliance, detriment, unconscionability) are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether an express promise is required to found proprietary estoppel in the context of testamentary dispositions

Ratio Decidendi

Peter Thorner's words and conduct over many years gave rise to a proprietary estoppel in favour of David Thorner. David reasonably expected to inherit Steart Farm, acted to his detriment in reliance on that expectation, and it would be unconscionable for the estate to devolve under the Intestacy Rules. The minimum equity necessary to do justice is to award David Steart Farm, its land, buildings, live and dead stock, and associated chattels, but not Peter's non-agricultural assets.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that David Thorner is entitled to Steart Farm, including land, buildings, live and dead stock, and associated chattels, together with such limited working capital as may have stood to the credit of the farm’s trading account(s) at Peter’s death.
  • Claim for the remainder of Peter Thorner's non-agricultural assets is refused.