Thorner v Major [2009]

Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18 is a significant case in English land law that examined the principles of proprietary estoppel, emphasising the significance of contextual interpretation and the retrospective assessment of assurances.

The case concerned Peter Thorner's farm in Somerset, where David Thorner, his second cousin, had worked for three decades without pay, nurturing the belief that he would inherit the farm. Although there was no explicit promise, Peter's conduct over the years, including gestures like providing housing and mentioning death duties, led David to believe in his inheritance. When Peter died intestate, David asserted proprietary estoppel, claiming a right to the farm.

Initially, the Court of Appeal denied David's claim, arguing that there was no clear and unequivocal assurance. However, John Randall QC disagreed, affirming David's entitlement to Steart Farm. The House of Lords ultimately ruled that the critical factor was whether a reasonable person could have relied on Peter's conduct as an assurance. Lord Hoffmann emphasised the significance of context, stating that even oblique expressions could constitute assurances if reasonably understood as such.

Lord Walker emphasised the importance of clarity in assurances, stressing that the context must be reviewed retrospectively to assess whether it would be unconscionable for the promise not to be upheld. Criticising the Court of Appeal for overlooking the trial judge's advantage in assessing witness testimony, he outlined the elements necessary for proprietary estoppel:

1. There must be a promise or representation by the defendant indicating that the claimant has or will acquire some right in relation to the defendant's land.
2. The claimant must demonstrate reasonable reliance on this promise or representation. In other words, the claimant acted or refrained from acting based on the belief in acquiring the stated right.
3. The claimant must have suffered detriment as a result of their reliance on the promise or representation. This detriment could take various forms, such as financial loss, opportunity cost, or other disadvantages incurred due to the claimant's actions or inaction prompted by the defendant's assurance.

Lord Neuberger echoed these sentiments, highlighting the practical assessment of clarity and rejecting unrealistic rigour in interpretation. He outlined three qualifications to the proposition that an assurance must be clear and unequivocal to form the basis of an estoppel.

1. He emphasised the importance of contextual interpretation, asserting that the effect of words depends on their factual context. Thus, a statement that may seem ambiguous and unclear in one context could be considered clear and unambiguous in another context.
2. Cautioning against an unrealistically rigorous application of the clear and unambiguous test. He suggested that it is normally sufficient for the claimant to establish that they reasonably understood the statement or conduct to be an assurance on which they could rely.
3. He addressed cases where an assurance could have more than one possible meaning. In such instances, he advocated for granting relief based on the interpretation least beneficial to the claimant.

Lord Scott contended that proprietary estoppel should only apply when the assurer believes they have or will imminently acquire rights to the land. He suggested that cases like inheritance disputes might be better resolved through remedial constructive trusts, emphasising clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment.

Regarding the extent of the property, uncertainty arose due to changes in the farm's size over time. Despite this, the Lords concluded that David's claim was valid, emphasising the clarity of the assurance regarding the farm's inheritance. They distinguished this case from Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd, highlighting the familial nature of the relationship and the absence of formal contracts.

In summary, Thorner v Major established important principles regarding proprietary estoppel, stressing contextual interpretation and practical assessment. The case underscored the importance of clarity in assurances and the need to consider the nature of the relationship between the parties.