## Facts

- Ms. Curran claimed an interest in properties legally owned by Mr. Collins, her long-term partner.
- She alleged that Mr. Collins promised shared ownership of their home and a business property.
- Legal ownership throughout remained with Mr. Collins alone.
- Mr. Collins denied making such promises and disputed that Ms. Curran had suffered loss sufficient to establish a claim.
- Ms. Curran identified personal efforts and actions taken in reliance on these alleged promises.
- The Court considered explanations for the absence of formal, written contracts or arrangements.

## Issues

1. Whether unclear or unsatisfactory explanations for lacking formal contracts can strengthen a proprietary estoppel claim.
2. Whether non-monetary contributions and actions typical within personal relationships can constitute sufficient loss for proprietary estoppel.
3. Whether promises made to Ms. Curran were sufficiently clear and precise to give rise to a proprietary estoppel claim.
4. Whether Ms. Curran’s expectation of property rights was reasonable in the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court found Mr. Collins’ proffered reasons for not formalising agreements unpersuasive, but held that absence of paperwork alone did not establish a claim.
- It was determined that only specific, evidence-backed explanations can effectively counter claims based on informal promises.
- The Court held that non-monetary actions, such as general work in the home or business, are commonly found in long-term relationships and were insufficient to demonstrate the necessary loss.
- Vague or general promises were held to be inadequate for establishing proprietary estoppel.
- Ms. Curran's expectation of rights in the properties was found not to be justified by the facts and promises as presented.
- The claim failed due to lack of sufficiently clear promises and absence of meaningful loss beyond ordinary relational conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary estoppel requires a clear and specific promise, action or reliance on that promise, and detriment or loss directly resulting from such reliance.
- The absence of a formal contract demands particular scrutiny; poor explanations for informality can lend weight to a claimant's case, but alone are insufficient.
- Non-financial contributions may establish loss, but must go beyond acts typical in the context of a personal relationship.
- Fairness and context are central to judging whether expectations from promises are reasonable.
- The case reaffirms that precise promises and demonstrable loss are essential, aligning with prior authorities on proprietary estoppel.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Curran v Collins [2015] EWCA Civ 404 clarified that proprietary estoppel claims fail where promises are vague and reliance results only in acts typical of personal relationships, reinforcing the need for specific assurances and direct, significant loss in property disputes.