## Facts

- Ms. Maharaj and Mr. Chand cohabited for several years.
- Ms. Maharaj alleged that Mr. Chand assured her the shared property would be her permanent home.
- Relying on this assurance, Ms. Maharaj made financial contributions to the household and performed domestic duties.
- After the relationship ended, Mr. Chand attempted to evict Ms. Maharaj, leading her to claim a legally enforceable interest in the property.
- The dispute centered on whether informal assurances and contributions by Ms. Maharaj gave rise to a beneficial interest in the property.

## Issues

1. Whether Ms. Maharaj’s reliance on Mr. Chand’s assurance created a legally enforceable interest in the property under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
2. Whether Ms. Maharaj’s financial and non-financial contributions were sufficient to establish a claim to the property.

## Decision

- The court held that Ms. Maharaj was entitled to a beneficial interest in the property based on proprietary estoppel.
- The court found that there was a clear assurance from Mr. Chand, reasonable reliance by Ms. Maharaj, and detriment suffered as a result.
- However, the awarded interest was limited and proportionate to the value of Ms. Maharaj’s contributions and detriment.
- The court emphasized that informal assurances must be supported by clear evidence of reliance and detriment for proprietary estoppel to apply.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary estoppel requires three elements: (1) a clear and unequivocal assurance regarding property rights; (2) reliance by the claimant that alters their position; and (3) detriment suffered as a result of reliance.
- The doctrine prevents parties from denying promises about property when others have acted to their detriment on those promises.
- Detriment must be significant and proportionate to the assurance given.
- Informal or oral assurances can, in principle, give rise to enforceable rights if these requirements are met, though formalizing property arrangements is still advisable.

## Conclusion

Maharaj v Chand established that proprietary estoppel can create a beneficial interest in a matrimonial home where there is clear assurance, reasonable reliance, and measurable detriment, though any resulting interest must be proportionate to the claimant’s contributions and the extent of their reliance.

Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107