Results: 48

• Nuffield Health v Merton London Borough Council

  12 Feb 2020 [2020] EWHC 259 (Ch), Ch D (Stuart Isaacs QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge)

  28 May 2021 [2021] EWCA Civ 826; [2022] Ch 1; [2021] 3 WLR 838; [2021] WLR(D) 318; The Times, 23 June 2021, CA (David Richards, Peter Jackson, Nugee LJJ)

  27 May 2022 (appn all) [2022] 1 WLR 3867, SC(E) (Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Burrows JJSC)

  07 Jun 2023 [2023] UKSC 18; [2024] AC 653; [2023] 3 WLR 13; [2023] 3 All ER 871, SC (Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 5.
  CHARITY — Charitable purposes — Advancement of health

  RATING — Non-domestic rates — Relief
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHARITY — Charitable purposes — Advancement of health

  RATING — Non-domestic rates — Relief — Registered charity applying for mandatory relief from non-domestic rates on gym premises on basis gym wholly or mainly used for “charitable purposes” — Whether charity required to establish premises used for “public benefit” — Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c 41), s 43(6)(a) — Charities Act 2011 (c 25), ss 2, 4

  RATING — Non-domestic rates — Relief — Registered charity applying for mandatory relief from non-domestic rates on gym premises — Whether gym wholly or mainly used for “charitable purposes” — Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c 41), s 43(6)(a) — Charities Act 2011 (c 25), s 2

  RATING — Non-domestic rates — Relief — Registered charity applying for mandatory relief from non-domestic rates on gym premises — Whether gym wholly or mainly used for “charitable purposes” — Whether necessary to show gym used for public benefit — Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c 41), s 43(6)(a) — Charities Act 2011 (c 25), s 2

  8 Case(s) considered

  3 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown (Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers)

  12 May 2021 [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB); [2021] WLR(D) 290, QBD (Nicklin J)

  13 Jan 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 13; [2023] QB 295; [2022] 2 WLR 946; [2022] 4 All ER 51; [2022] JPL 43; [2022] WLR(D) 48, CA (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Lewison, Elisabeth Laing LJJ)

  25 Oct 2022 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 382, SC(E) ( Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens JJSC)

  29 Nov 2023 [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] AC 983; [2024] 2 WLR 45; [2024] 2 All ER 431; [2023] WLR(D) 513; The Times, 5 February 2024, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs JJSC, Lord Kitchin)

  Subsequent considerations : 6 positive; 6 neutral; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 133.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Persons unknown

  INJUNCTION — Final — Persons unknown

  INJUNCTION — Trespass — Persons unknown
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Persons unknown — Local authorities applying for injunctions against travellers to restrain unauthorised encampments on land — Interim injunctions granted against persons unknown — Whether final injunctions to be granted — Whether injunctions to bind newcomers to the proceedings — CPR rr 3.1(7), 38.2, 6.15, 8.2A(1), PD 8A, PD 25A

  INJUNCTION — Final — Persons unknown — Local authorities obtaining final injunctions against persons unknown to restrain unauthorised encampments on land — Judge calling in injunctions for reconsideration in light of subsequent legal developments — Whether court having power to grant final injunctions against persons unknown — Whether procedure adopted by judge appropriate — Whether limits on court’s power to grant injunctions against world — Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54), s 37 — Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c 8), s 187B

  INJUNCTION — Trespass — Persons unknown — Local authorities obtaining injunctions against persons unknown to restrain unauthorised encampments on land — Whether court having power to grant final injunctions against persons unknown — Whether limits on court’s power to grant injunctions against world — Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54), s 37

  19 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc

  18 Jan 2021 [2021] EWHC 10 (Comm); [2021] Bus LR 451; [2021] WLR(D) 60, QBD (Judge Russen QC sitting as a High Court judge)

  14 Mar 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 318; [2022] QB 578; [2022] 2 WLR 872; [2022] Bus LR 353; [2022] WLR(D) 121, CA (Sir Julian Flaux C, Coulson, Birss LJJ)

  27 Oct 2022 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 395; [2023] Bus LR 13, SC(E) (Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose JJSC)

  12 Jul 2023 [2023] UKSC 25; [2024] AC 346; [2023] 3 WLR 284; [2023] Bus LR 1269; [2023] 4 All ER 847; [2024] 1 All ER (Comm) 1; [2023] 2 Lloyd's Rep 125; [2023] WLR(D) 305, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 26.
  BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders — Fraudster inducing claimant to make authorised push payments from her account with defendant bank to overseas accounts — Whether bank having duty to protect claimant from consequences of payments willingly made but induced by fraud

  BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders — Fraudster inducing customer to instruct bank to make authorised transfer from account — Bank under duty not to execute instruction when on inquiry that execution might result in misappropriation of customer’s funds — Whether duty only arising where instruction given by customer’s agent — Whether bank arguably in breach of duty owed to customer

  BANKING — Duty of care — Execution of customer’s orders — Fraudster inducing customer to instruct bank to make transfer from account — Whether bank under duty not to execute customer’s instruction if on inquiry that execution could result in misappropriation of customer’s funds — Whether such duty only arising where instruction given by customer’s agent — Whether bank arguably in breach of duty owed to customer

  9 Case(s) considered

• Birmingham City Council v Jones

  11 Oct 2016 (unreported), QBD (Burton J)

  23 May 2018 [2018] EWCA Civ 1189; [2019] QB 521; [2018] 3 WLR 1695; [2018] 2 Cr App R 23; [2018] WLR (D) 312, CA (Sir Brian Leveson P, Underhill, Irwin LJJ)

  30 Mar 2022 (appn all) [2022] 1 WLR 2276, SC(E) (Lord Briggs, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose JJSC)

  19 Jul 2023 [2023] UKSC 27; [2024] AC 168; [2023] 3 WLR 343; [2023] 4 All ER 595; [2023] 2 Cr App R 19; [2023] WLR(D) 317, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose, Lord Richards JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 14.
  INJUNCTION — Gang-related violence — Exercise of statutory jurisdiction

  INJUNCTION — Gang injunctions — Standard of proof
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Gang-related violence — Exercise of statutory jurisdiction — Statutory power to grant injunction in restraint of gang-related violence — Whether involving determination of criminal charge — Appropriate standard of proof — Whether scheme compatible with Convention right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6 — Policing and Crime Act 2009 (c 26), s 34 (as amended by Serious Crime Act 2015 (c 9), s 51) — Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c 12), s 1

  INJUNCTION — Gang injunctions — Standard of proof — Statutory powers to grant injunctions in restraint of gang-related violence, gang-related drug-dealing activity and anti-social behaviour — Whether criminal or civil standard of proof applicable — Whether statutory schemes compatible with Convention right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1) — Policing and Crime Act 2009 (c 26), s 34 — Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c 12), s 1

  10 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP

  27 Apr 2021 [2021] EWHC 974 (Comm); [2021] 1 WLR 4237; [2021] STC 2395; [2021] WLR(D) 246, QBD (Andrew Baker J)

  25 Feb 2022 [2022] EWCA Civ 234; [2022] QB 772; [2022] 3 WLR 397; [2022] 2 All ER 563; [2022] STC 497; [2022] WLR(D) 107, CA (Sir Julian Flaux C, Phillips, Stuart-Smith LJJ)

  28 Oct 2022 (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 481, SC(E) ( Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Leggatt, Lady Rose JJSC)

  08 Nov 2023 [2023] UKSC 40; [2024] AC 539; [2023] 3 WLR 886; [2024] 1 All ER 939; [2023] STC 1875; [2023] WLR(D) 470, SC(E) (Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Richards JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2025. Subsequent citations: 18.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign revenue laws — Jurisdiction to enforce

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign revenue law — Enforcement of
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign revenue laws — Jurisdiction to enforce — Foreign tax authority bringing private law claims against taxpayers in relation to wrongful tax refunds — Whether claims inadmissible as actions for enforcement of revenue laws of foreign state — Whether proceedings “civil and commercial matter” under European Regulation or Convention — Whether, if so, claims admissible — Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, art 1(1) — Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (2007), art 1(1)

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign revenue law — Enforcement of — Foreign tax authority bringing claims to recover monies wrongfully paid out as tax refunds — Authority claiming that defendants fraudulently or negligently misrepresenting that refund due when no tax ever paid or even due — Whether claims inadmissible as actions for enforcement of revenue law of foreign state — Whether claims subject to European Regulation as “civil and commercial matters” — Parliament and Council Regulation (EU)No 1215/2012, art 1(1)

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Foreign revenue law — Enforcement of — Foreign tax authority bringing claims to recover monies wrongfully paid out as tax refunds — Authority claiming that defendants fraudulently or negligently misrepresenting that refund due when no tax ever paid or due — Whether claims inadmissible as actions for enforcement of revenue law of foreign state

  19 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 International Agreement considered
• Potanin v Potanina

  08 Nov 2019 [2019] EWHC 2956 (Fam); [2020] Fam 189; [2020] 2 WLR 311; [2020] 1 FLR 616; [2019] WLR (D) 632, Fam D (Cohen J)

  13 May 2021 [2021] EWCA Civ 702; [2022] Fam 23; [2021] 3 WLR 967; [2021] 2 FLR 1457; [2021] WLR(D) 279; The Times, 15 June 2021, CA (King, David Richards, Moylan LJJ)

  27 May 2022 (appn all) [2022] 1 WLR 3877, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens JJSC)

  31 Jan 2024 [2024] UKSC 3; [2024] AC 1063; [2024] 2 WLR 540; [2024] 2 All ER 773; [2024] 1 FLR 1040, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose JJSC)

  04 Sep 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 1136; [2025] WLR(D) 458, CA (Moylan, Falk, Cobb LJJ)

  02 Oct 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 1223, CA (Moylan, Falk, Cobb LJJ)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 18.
  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision — Russian court dissolving parties’ marriage and ordering financial provision for wife — Wife applying to English court for financial relief — Whether appropriate for English court to order financial relief — Whether court entitled to dismiss wife’s application on ground of lack of connection with England and Wales — Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42), s 16 (as amended by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/1484), Sch 7, para 10) — Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision — Wife seeking leave to apply for financial relief following overseas divorce — Judge granting leave at without notice hearing — Proper approach to husband’s application to set aside grant of leave — Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42), s 13(1), 16 — FPR rr 8.25, 18.11

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision — Wife seeking leave to apply for financial relief following overseas divorce — Judge granting leave at without notice hearing — Husband applying to set aside grant of leave — Proper approach to husband’s application — Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42), s 13(1) — FPR rr 8.25, 18.11

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision — Wife seeking leave to apply for financial relief following overseas divorce — Judge granting leave at without notice hearing — Judge granting husband’s application to set leave aside — Whether “substantial” attaching to “connection” when considering jurisdiction on application for financial relief — Whether judge applying threshold test correctly in determining if wife demonstrating “substantial” ground for applying for financial relief — Whether wife prevented from bringing maintenance claim in jurisdiction — Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42), ss 13(1), 16(2)(3) — Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, art 3

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision

  17 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered

• Hasan v Ul-Hasan, decd (Unger v Ul-Hasan, decd)

  02 Jul 2021 [2021] EWHC 1791 (Fam); [2022] Fam 1; [2021] 3 WLR 989; [2022] 1 FLR 1033; [2021] WLR(D) 370, Fam D (Mostyn J)

  30 Mar 2022 (appn all) [2022] 1 WLR 2296, SC(E) (Lord Briggs, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose JJSC)

  28 Jun 2023 [2023] UKSC 22; [2024] AC 497; [2023] 3 WLR 189; [2024] 1 All ER 463; [2023] 2 FLR 860; [2023] WLR(D) 282; The Times, 12 July 2023, SC(E) (Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 10.
  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision — Wife applying for financial relief following overseas divorce — Husband dying prior to adjudication of application — Whether application constituting “cause of action” surviving against estate — Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (24 & 25 Geo 5, c 41), s 1 — Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c 18), ss 23, 24, 25 — Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42), ss 17, 18(3)

  MARRIAGE — Divorce — Financial provision — Wife applying for financial relief following overseas divorce — Husband dying prior to adjudication of application — Whether court having jurisdiction to adjudicate on application as against deceased husband’s estate — Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c 18), ss 23(1), 24(1) — Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c 42), ss 12(1), 17

  18 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

  12 Feb 2019 [2019] EWHC 246 (Ch); [2019] Ch 369; [2019] 2 WLR 1335; [2019] WLR(D) 91, Ch D (Mann J)

  21 Jan 2020 (Appeal hearing) Video archive, CA

  12 Feb 2020 [2020] EWCA Civ 104; [2020] Ch 621; [2020] 2 WLR 1081; [2021] 1 All ER 60; [2020] WLR (D) 86; Press summary (pdf), CA (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lewison, Rose LJJ)

  04 Nov 2020 (appn all) [2021] 1 WLR 568; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  01 Feb 2023 [2023] UKSC 4; [2024] AC 1; [2023] 2 WLR 339; [2023] 2 All ER 1; [2023] WLR(D) 53; The Times, 6 February 2023, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 33.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Visual intrusion
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Public authority — Functions of public nature — Art gallery formed by statute offering art displays and education to public — Claim that gallery acting in way incompatible with Convention rights — Whether gallery “public authority” — Whether gallery exercising “functions of a public nature” — Whether claim for breach of Convention rights lying — Museums and Galleries Act 1992 (c 44), s 1(1) — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), s 6

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy — Art gallery’s walkway allowing visitors to view interior of claimants’ flats — Whether use of walkway invasion of claimants’ Convention right to respect for private life — Whether tort of nuisance capable of protecting privacy in home — Whether operation of walkway actionable nuisance — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy — Art gallery’s walkway allowing visitors to view interior of neighbouring flats — Whether invasion of privacy by overlooking capable of giving rise to cause of action in private nuisance — Whether Convention right to respect for home and private life requiring tort of nuisance to be extended to include overlooking — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Visual intrusion — Art gallery’s public viewing platform allowing visitors to view interiors of neighbouring flats with glass walls — Public frequently taking photographs of interiors of flats and sometimes posting them on social media — Whether gallery liable in private nuisance — Whether intrusive viewing from neighbouring property capable of amounting to nuisance

  NUISANCE — Cause of action — Privacy — Gallery operating walkway giving views over London — Claimants owning glass-walled flats adjacent to gallery — Walkway allowing users to view interior of claimants’ flats — Claimants contending use of walkway invasion of privacy rights — Whether tort of nuisance capable of protecting privacy in home — Correct approach to determining whether invasion of privacy constituting nuisance — Whether in circumstances operation of walkway actionable nuisance — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 8

  25 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Smith v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Burrell v Royal Bank of Scotland plc)

  03 Dec 2021 [2021] EWCA Civ 1832; [2022] 1 WLR 2136; [2022] 2 All ER (Comm) 761; [2022] WLR(D) 69, CA (Macur, Coulson, Birss LJJ)

  08 Aug 2022 (appn all) [2022] 1 WLR 4321, SC(E) (Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Burrows JJSC)

  04 Oct 2023 [2023] UKSC 34; [2024] AC 955; [2023] 3 WLR 551; [2024] 1 All ER 97; [2024] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2023] WLR(D) 418, SC(E) (Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt JJSC, Lord Kitchin)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 15.
  FAIR TRADING — Consumer credit — Agreement

  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Statute, action on — Accrual of cause of action

  LIMITATION — Statute, action on — Accrual of cause of action
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FAIR TRADING — Consumer credit — Agreement — Claimant entering into credit agreement with bank and related agreement with insurer — Claimant claiming repayment of sums paid under related agreement on ground credit relationship with bank unfair — Related agreement ending before statutory provisions permitting such repayment coming into force — Whether court permitted to take account of related agreement when assessing fairness of credit relationship — Whether sums paid by virtue of credit agreement as well as by virtue of related agreement — Whether claimants having cause of action against bank — Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c 39), ss 140A, 140B — Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c 14), Sch 3, paras 14, 16

  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Statute, action on — Accrual of cause of action — Claimants claiming relief in respect of unfair credit relationship — Credit relationship unfair taking into account related agreement — Whether cause of action accruing when related agreement ending or from day to day until unfair credit relationship ending — Whether credit relationship unfair for entire length of credit agreement — Limitation Act 1980 (c 58), s 9

  LIMITATION — Statute, action on — Accrual of cause of action — Claimant entering into credit agreement with bank and related agreement with insurer — Claimant claiming repayment of sums paid under related agreement on ground credit relationship with bank unfair — Claim made more than six years after related agreement ending but less than six years after credit relationship ending — Whether claim time-barred — When cause of action accruing — Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c 39), ss 140A, 140B — Limitation Act 1980 (c 58), s 9

  LIMITATION OF ACTION — Statute, action on — Accrual of cause of action — Claimant entering into credit agreement with bank and related agreement with insurer — Claimant claiming repayment of sums paid under related agreement on ground credit relationship with bank unfair — Claim made more than six years after related agreement ending but less than six years after credit relationship ending — Whether claim time-barred — When cause of action accruing — Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c 39), ss 140A, 140B — Limitation Act 1980 (c 58), s 9

  5 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Guest v Guest

  16 Apr 2019 [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch), Ch D (Judge Russen QC sitting as a High Court judge)

  17 Mar 2020 [2020] EWCA Civ 387; [2020] 1 WLR 3480; [2021] 1 All ER 503; [2020] WLR (D) 170, CA (Floyd, Newey, Arnold LJJ)

  15 Dec 2020 (appn all) [2021] 1 WLR 750, SC(E) ( Lady Black, Lady Arden, Lord Stephens JJSC)

  19 Oct 2022 [2022] UKSC 27; [2024] AC 833; [2022] 3 WLR 911; [2023] 1 All ER 695; [2023] 1 FLR 590, SC(E) (Lord Briggs, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose JJSC, Lady Arden)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2023. Subsequent citations: 45.
  ESTOPPEL — Conduct, by — Proprietary estoppel

  ESTOPPEL — Conduct by — Proprietary estoppel
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ESTOPPEL — Conduct, by — Proprietary estoppel

  ESTOPPEL — Conduct by — Proprietary estoppel — Claimant living and working on defendants’ farm for over 30 years — Claimant seeking declaration of beneficial interest in farm on basis of detrimental reliance on defendants’ assurances he would inherit — Judge allowing claim and awarding lump sum representing percentage of market value of farm and farming business — Whether judge applying correct test to consideration of remedy — Whether judge required to consider extent of equity arising — Whether remedy to be determined by reference to objectively assessed intention of person making assurance

  ESTOPPEL — Conduct by — Proprietary estoppel — Claimant living and working on defendants’ farm for very low wages for 30 years — Claimant seeking declaration of beneficial interest in farm on basis of detrimental reliance on defendants’ promises he would inherit — Judge finding proprietary estoppel established — Proper approach to remedy to be awarded — 2016090749Whether binary choice between enforcing promise and compensating for detriment

  ESTOPPEL — Conduct by — Proprietary estoppel — Claimant living and working on parents’ farm for very low wages for 30 years — Claimant seeking declaration of beneficial interest in farm on basis of detrimental reliance on parents’ promises he would inherit — Judge finding proprietary estoppel established — Proper approach to remedy — Whether binary choice between enforcing promise and compensating for detriment

  7 Case(s) considered