Re Basham [1987] 1 All ER 405

Facts

• The case concerned Mrs. Basham, a stepdaughter who cared for her stepfather for many years, believing she would inherit his property after his death.
• The stepfather provided repeated assurances to Mrs. Basham that led her to forgo other opportunities and invest significant time and effort in maintaining the property.
• After the stepfather died intestate, his biological children claimed the estate, leaving Mrs. Basham without the inheritance she expected.
• Mrs. Basham claimed proprietary estoppel, arguing her stepfather’s assurances had induced her detrimental actions, and sought equitable relief.

Issues

1. Whether Mrs. Basham’s actions were directly caused by her stepfather’s assurances regarding inheritance.
2. Whether the detriment suffered by Mrs. Basham was sufficient to invoke the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
3. Whether it would be unconscionable to deny Mrs. Basham the benefit of her stepfather’s promises and thus deny relief.
4. What equitable remedy was appropriate in the circumstances.

Decision

• The court found a direct causal connection between the assurances given and Mrs. Basham’s detrimental actions.
• Mrs. Basham’s reliance on her stepfather’s promises was reasonable and motivated her to care for him and maintain the property.
• The detriment suffered was not incidental but directly attributable to the stepfather’s assurances.
• The court held that it would be unconscionable to deny Mrs. Basham the benefit of the promises made.
• Mrs. Basham was granted a proprietary interest in the property as equitable relief proportionate to her detriment.

Legal Principles

• Proprietary estoppel requires a clear assurance or promise, reliance on that promise, and detriment resulting from the reliance.
• There must be a direct and unequivocal causal link between the promise or assurance and the claimant’s detrimental actions.
• Detriment must be substantial and directly attributable to the promise.
• Unconscionability is central; courts consider whether it would be unjust to allow the promisor to renege after inducing reliance and detriment.
• Equitable remedies for proprietary estoppel are discretionary, aiming to satisfy the equity arising from the claimant’s conduct and to prevent injustice.

Conclusion

Re Basham clarified that a claimant must show a direct causal link between an assurance and their detriment for proprietary estoppel to apply. The decision reinforced the doctrine’s focus on unconscionability and flexible remedies based on the particular facts and substantial detriment suffered in reliance on a promise.