## Facts

- The defendant began farming the claimant’s land on the basis of a mutual understanding that he would be granted an agricultural tenancy.
- The defendant made investments in tools and livestock in anticipation of this tenancy.
- No formal agreement concerning the tenancy was ever reached, as fundamental terms such as rent were not agreed upon.
- The claimant later sought possession of the land.
- The defendant claimed that proprietary estoppel entitled him to a tenancy, arguing he had relied to his disadvantage on the expectation of receiving a lease.
- The dispute centred on whether the defendant’s belief in obtaining a tenancy was sufficiently definite to support a claim for proprietary estoppel.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s expectation of receiving a tenancy was sufficiently clear and detailed to found a proprietary estoppel claim.
2. Whether detrimental reliance based on a vague or incomplete assurance could justify the creation of a proprietary right in land.
3. Whether the court could or should supply missing fundamental terms (such as rent and duration) to perfect an otherwise incomplete agreement for the purposes of proprietary estoppel.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the defendant’s belief that he would be granted a tenancy was not, on its own, sufficient to establish proprietary estoppel.
- The court determined the expectation must be supported by evidence of specific and agreed terms; in this case, key aspects such as the lease’s duration and the amount of rent were undefined.
- The absence of concrete terms made it impossible for the court to identify the precise proprietary right to which an estoppel could attach.
- The court declined to create contractual terms for the parties, finding that this would be speculative and outside the scope of its equitable jurisdiction.
- The defendant’s claim on the basis of proprietary estoppel was rejected due to the lack of certainty regarding the alleged interest.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary estoppel requires an unequivocal and clear assurance by the landowner, detrimental reliance by the claimant, and unconscionability in denying the right.
- The assurance or expectation relied upon must be sufficiently detailed and certain to allow a court to give effect to it.
- Courts will not create rights or fill in fundamental contractual terms where the parties themselves have failed to agree on the essentials.
- The remedy for an estoppel claim cannot exceed the scope of the claimant’s own reasonable expectation, and if that expectation is uncertain or indefinite, no remedy can be granted.
- The decision reinforces the need for clarity in property-related agreements if equitable doctrines are to operate.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Orgee v Orgee clarified that a proprietary estoppel claim requires a sufficiently certain and concrete expectation of a proprietary right; vague, incomplete, or aspirational beliefs are insufficient, and courts will not invent the essential terms of an agreement neither party has fully defined.

Orgee v Orgee [1997] EWCA Civ 2650