Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to glossary

Proprietary Estoppel

Also known as: Equitable Estoppel, Detrimental Reliance

Definition

Proprietary estoppel is an equitable remedy that grants property rights to someone who relied on a promise or assurance about inheriting or acquiring property, and suffered detriment as a result.

This legal doctrine prevents unfair conduct when someone makes promises they later break, particularly in family farm succession, unmarried couple property disputes, and inheritance situations where promises weren't formalized in writing.

What Does Proprietary Estoppel Mean?

Proprietary estoppel is an equitable doctrine rooted in English property law that prevents unconscionable conduct—conduct so unfair that equity will not permit it. Unlike contract law, which requires formal agreements, proprietary estoppel provides a remedy when promises weren't documented but someone acted on them to their disadvantage. The principle is straightforward: the law won't allow someone to break promises that another person reasonably relied upon, causing significant harm.

The doctrine requires proof of three essential elements, established by the House of Lords in Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18. First, there must be an assurance or promise of sufficient clarity that you would acquire property rights. This doesn't need to be an explicit verbal statement—conduct can suffice if the message is clear in context. Second, you must have reasonably relied on that assurance. Third, you must have suffered detriment as a consequence of your reliance. In the landmark Thorner case, David worked unpaid on his cousin Peter's 200-acre farm for 30 years after Peter gave him life insurance bonus documents saying "that's for my death duties," implying David would inherit and need to pay inheritance tax. When Peter died intestate, the House of Lords held it would be unconscionable to deny David the farm after he'd devoted his career to it based on Peter's assurances.

Detriment extends far beyond financial loss. It includes decades of unpaid work, career sacrifices, providing care, making property improvements, or turning down opportunities based on inheritance promises. Consider Emma, who gave up her £45,000 nursing job in London to provide full-time care for her elderly father Robert after he promised "the house will be yours." Over five years, Emma lost £225,000 in earnings, created a career gap making re-entry difficult, and saved Robert approximately £150,000 in care home fees. When Robert remarried and changed his will to leave everything to his new wife, Emma had a strong proprietary estoppel claim—not just for her financial losses, but for the unconscionability of allowing Robert to break his promise after she'd sacrificed her career to care for him.

The remedy is discretionary, meaning courts decide what's fair based on the circumstances. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27, the remedy should normally fulfill the claimant's expectations—if you were promised the family farm, the court will typically order transfer of the farm rather than just monetary compensation. However, Lord Briggs clarified that the remedy shouldn't be "out of all proportion to the detriment" suffered. Claims can be brought during the promisor's lifetime (not just after death), as established in Gillett v Holt [2001], meaning you don't have to wait until inheritance is denied through a will—you can seek remedy as soon as the promise is broken.

Common Questions

"Can I claim property rights based on a verbal promise of inheritance?" You may be able to claim property rights through proprietary estoppel if you can prove three elements: a clear promise or assurance about inheriting property, that you reasonably relied on this promise, and that you suffered significant detriment as a result (such as working unpaid for years or spending money on improvements). The landmark case Thorner v Major (2009) established that even implicit promises can suffice if they're clear in context.

"Does a proprietary estoppel claim only work after someone has died?" No, proprietary estoppel claims can be brought during the promisor's lifetime. The case of Gillett v Holt (2001) confirmed that courts can intervene before death if a relationship has broken down and the promisor has reneged on their assurance. This means you don't have to wait until inheritance is denied through a will—you can seek remedy as soon as the promise is broken.

"What counts as 'detriment' in proprietary estoppel claims?" Detriment doesn't have to be purely financial—it can include decades of unpaid work, career sacrifices, providing care, making improvements to property, or turning down other opportunities based on the promise of inheritance. Recent case law confirms courts assess detriment holistically, considering the overall unconscionability of allowing the promisor to break their assurance after you've relied on it to your disadvantage.

Common Misconceptions

Myth: You can only claim proprietary estoppel if you have a written promise or agreement.

Reality: Proprietary estoppel specifically applies when there's no formal written agreement. The entire purpose is to provide a remedy where promises weren't formalized in writing. The assurance can be verbal, implied through conduct, or even inferred from a pattern of behavior over time. In Thorner v Major, the House of Lords upheld a claim where the promise was never explicitly stated—Peter's conduct of giving David life insurance documents saying "that's for my death duties" was sufficient in the family farming context.

Myth: If you're named in someone's will, they can't change it, so you don't need proprietary estoppel.

Reality: A will can be changed or revoked at any time before death (assuming the testator has capacity). Being named in a current will provides no legal protection against being removed in a future will or codicil. Proprietary estoppel becomes relevant when someone makes assurances about inheritance, you rely on those assurances to your detriment (perhaps for decades), and then they change their will to exclude you. The claim addresses the unconscionability of breaking promises you relied upon, creating property rights independent of what any will states.

  • Will Challenge: Proprietary estoppel is one legal basis for challenging distribution of an estate, providing an alternative to Inheritance Act 1975 claims for people who relied on promises about property to their detriment.
  • Promise: The first required element of proprietary estoppel is a promise or assurance that must be sufficiently clear in context—it doesn't need to be explicit, but the claimant must reasonably understand they would receive property rights.
  • Property Rights: A successful proprietary estoppel claim grants property rights—potentially full ownership, a beneficial interest, or monetary equivalent—even without a formal transfer document.
  • Inheritance Expectation: Proprietary estoppel protects reasonable inheritance expectations based on assurances, but not all expectations are legally protected—only those meeting the three-part test of clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and resulting detriment.
  • Equitable Remedy: As an equitable remedy, proprietary estoppel is discretionary, meaning courts determine what's fair based on the circumstances rather than applying rigid rules.

Need Help with Your Will?

Understanding proprietary estoppel highlights the critical importance of clear, formal estate planning. Documenting your wishes in a legally binding will prevents the painful family disputes that arise when inheritance expectations aren't properly formalized.

Create your will with confidence using WUHLD's guided platform. For just £99.99, you'll get your complete, legally binding will plus three expert guides. Preview your will free before paying anything—no credit card required.

Legal Disclaimer:

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. WUHLD is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Laws and guidance change and their application depends on your circumstances. For advice about your situation, consult a qualified solicitor or regulated professional. Unless stated otherwise, information relates to England and Wales.