Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P&CR 196

Facts

  • Mr. Dalby lived in a property owned by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Sledmore, for over 30 years.
  • During this time, Mr. Dalby made significant financial contributions to the property, including renovations and mortgage payments.
  • Mr. Dalby acted on assurances from Mrs. Sledmore that he would inherit the property upon her death.
  • Later, Mrs. Sledmore sought possession of the property, contending that her own financial situation had deteriorated and she required the property for her use.
  • The dispute concerned whether Mr. Dalby's proprietary estoppel claim—based on past assurances and his reliance—remained enforceable in light of the changed circumstances.

Issues

  1. Whether the equitable rights conferred to Mr. Dalby through proprietary estoppel could be extinguished due to changed circumstances.
  2. Whether the elements of proprietary estoppel (assurance, reliance, and detriment) justified ongoing enforcement of Mr. Dalby's claim.
  3. Whether proportionality allowed the court to override Mr. Dalby’s equitable rights in favor of Mrs. Sledmore’s current needs.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that proprietary estoppel may establish equitable rights, but these rights are not absolute and can be modified or ended by significantly changed circumstances.
  • The court determined that Mrs. Sledmore's worsened financial condition and current need for the property warranted extinguishment of Mr. Dalby's equitable rights.
  • The remedy must be proportionate, balancing the loss suffered by Mr. Dalby against the present needs of Mrs. Sledmore.
  • Mr. Dalby's contributions, though substantial, did not justify a permanent right to the property under the prevailing circumstances.

Legal Principles

  • Proprietary estoppel requires assurance, reliance, and detriment, but equitable rights arising from it are subject to alteration or extinguishment based on changes in circumstances.
  • Equitable remedies must be proportionate and reflect the balance between the interests of the claimant and the legal owner.
  • The flexibility of equity permits courts to respond appropriately to the practical realities facing the parties.
  • Changed circumstances may defeat previously established equitable rights if enforcement would be unjust or cause hardship.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P&CR 196 clarified that equitable rights founded on proprietary estoppel are not fixed and may be extinguished where circumstances have significantly changed, with remedies tailored to achieve a fair balance between the parties.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal