Curran v Collins, [2015] EWCA Civ 404

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Matthew and Serena have cohabited for eight years in an apartment solely owned by Matthew. Throughout their relationship, Serena asserts that Matthew repeatedly promised her an ownership interest in the property. In reliance on these promises, Serena carried out extensive renovations on the apartment and assisted Matthew in his small import business. Matthew contends that they never intended to pool assets, so no formal agreement was necessary. When the relationship ends, Serena demands a share in the apartment, alleging that she detrimentally relied on Matthew's assurances.


Which of the following best reflects the principle of proprietary estoppel in evaluating whether Serena can claim a share in the apartment?

Introduction

Proprietary estoppel applies when a promise, action taken because of that promise, and resulting loss together create unfairness. Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404 adds to the understanding of this legal rule, particularly concerning unclear explanations for missing written contracts and the need to prove direct loss from dependence. This case stresses the importance of detailed fact review to decide if a proprietary estoppel claim succeeds. The Court of Appeal’s decision sets out what is needed to prove loss and offers ways to judge whether expectations from promises are fair.

The Facts of Curran v Collins

Ms. Curran claimed she had rights to properties owned by Mr. Collins, her long-term partner. She argued he told her she would share ownership of their home and a business property, though legal ownership stayed with him alone. Mr. Collins denied making such promises and said her actions did not meet the level needed to prove loss from dependence.

Explanations for Lacking Formal Contracts

The Court in Curran looked at Mr. Collins’ reasons for not making formal contracts, such as neglecting paperwork or thinking joint ownership was not needed. The Court found these reasons unpersuasive. Gillett v Holt [2001] Ch 210 stressed the need to carefully judge explanations for missing formal contracts, especially when relationships shift. Curran agreed, stating poor explanations can support a claimant’s case. The decision indicates specific, evidence-backed reasons are required to oppose claims from informal promises.

Loss from Dependence: More Than Money

Ms. Curran’s case relied on steps she took that hurt her interests because of Mr. Collins’ promises. While money contributions can show loss, Curran states non-monetary efforts also matter. The Court checked her work at the business and home but saw these actions as common in long-term partnerships. This follows Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638, which requires loss to be significant and clearly tied to the promises made.

Context and Fairness in Judgment

Curran shows that judging proprietary estoppel claims depends on circumstances. The Court reviewed the parties’ relationship, noting the need to decide if the claimant’s belief in enforceable rights was fair. Here, the Court found Ms. Curran’s expectations unfounded due to vague promises and minor loss. This matches Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008] UKHL 45, which looks at context and the parties’ behavior.

Main Points of Proprietary Estoppel

Curran v Collins clarifies rules of proprietary estoppel. It confirms promises must be exact—broad statements are not enough. The case also says loss must be significant, beyond what is usual in relationships. Further, the decision notes the importance of judging whether expectations are fair given the situation. These rules build on cases like Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18, which required clear promises.

Conclusion

Curran v Collins shows how proprietary estoppel works in practice. The judgment highlights the need for detailed fact review and context. The Court of Appeal’s advice on judging weak explanations and proving clear loss adds precision to the law. By stressing exact promises, direct loss, and fair expectations, the case supports using proprietary estoppel to avoid unfair outcomes. It strengthens rules from cases like Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159, ensuring the rule stays a useful way to solve property disputes. The review in Curran continues to guide how courts apply proprietary estoppel, balancing fairness for all parties.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal