## Facts

- Mr. Pascoe and Ms. Turner cohabited in a property owned by Mr. Pascoe.
- Mr. Pascoe made assurances to Ms. Turner that the house would be hers.
- Relying on these assurances, Ms. Turner expended her own funds on significant improvements to the property.
- Following the end of their relationship, Mr. Pascoe sought to reclaim the property.
- Ms. Turner brought a claim based on proprietary estoppel due to her reliance and resulting financial detriment.

## Issues

1. Whether Mr. Pascoe’s assurances to Ms. Turner, relied upon to her financial detriment, satisfied the requirements for proprietary estoppel.
2. What the appropriate remedy should be to satisfy the equity arising from Ms. Turner’s reliance and detriment.
3. Whether a transfer of the freehold interest was a proportionate or necessary remedy, as opposed to alternative lesser remedies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found all elements of proprietary estoppel—assurance, reliance, and detriment—were present.
- The court determined that Ms. Turner’s reliance on Mr. Pascoe's representations and her resulting expenditure justified equitable intervention.
- It was held that mere monetary compensation or the grant of a license or life interest would not be proportionate to the detriment suffered.
- The court ordered the transfer of the freehold interest in the property to Ms. Turner as the appropriate remedy.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary estoppel prevents a party from denying rights in property where another has relied to their detriment on an assurance or promise.
- The doctrine requires: (1) clear assurance; (2) reliance on that assurance; and (3) detriment suffered as a result.
- Flexibility in equitable remedies allows courts to tailor relief according to the claimant’s detriment and the proportionality necessary to satisfy equity in the circumstances.
- In circumstances of significant reliance and detriment, a transfer of the freehold may be a necessary and proportionate remedy.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that, as Ms. Turner had relied to her detriment on Mr. Pascoe’s clear assurance and lesser remedies would not have been adequate, the transfer of the freehold interest was warranted to do justice between the parties according to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

Pascoe v Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431