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.
