Proprietary estoppel

In ‘From the courts’ on p2, there is a note of the Court of Appeal decision in Bradbury and others v Taylor and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1208. Although Lloyd LJ observed in his judgment that the case raised no issues of law, he did make some interesting observations on the remedy provided by the court, once the proprietary estoppel has been established. Bradbury v Taylor is similar in one way to the leading House of Lords decision in Thorner v Majors and another [2009] UKHL 18. In that case the deceased was a farmer and his nephew had come to work on the farm. The uncle was held to have promised that he would leave the nephew the farm. The House of Lords confirmed the decision of the court at first instance which ordered that the implied promise should be carried out and ordered that the whole farm be transferred to the nephew. Having read the description of the agricultural lifestyle, and the amount of largely unpaid work carried out by the nephew in the uncle’s lifetime, the urban reader will probably feel that the nephew had thoroughly earned the award. In Bradbury v Taylor the court at first instance also awarded the whole of what was promised. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. However, the urban reader might feel that this represented a very ample, even generous reward for the burden of living in a large pleasant house in the countryside. The court does of course have a discretion to award less than was promised, and the appellants argued strenuously that, even though the proprietary estoppel was established, a lesser award would be justified. This is how Lloyd LJ explained the decision to award the whole of what was promised.