## Facts

- The claimant (C) worked unpaid for almost thirty years on his relative (D)'s farm.
- D gave C a bonus notification regarding two assurance policies on D’s life, indicating these were “for his death duties.”
- D had drafted a will benefitting C with the entire residuary estate, but destroyed the will and did not create a new one.
- Upon D’s death intestate, a dispute arose as to whether C was entitled to the farm by proprietary estoppel.
- The trial judge found for C, viewing D's actions as sufficient assurances.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding no clear and unequivocal representation.
- The House of Lords reviewed whether C had established the elements of proprietary estoppel in these circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the assurances given by D to C were sufficiently clear in the context to give rise to proprietary estoppel.
2. Whether C's reliance on D’s conduct and assurances, and any resulting detriment, satisfied the requirements for proprietary estoppel.
3. Whether the fluctuating extent of the farm defeated C's claim to a proprietary interest.
4. Whether proprietary estoppel in this case was properly distinguished from promissory estoppel.
5. Whether the informal, familial nature of the relationship between C and D influenced the court’s approach to assessing proprietary estoppel.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that assurances sufficient for proprietary estoppel do not need to be explicit if the context and conduct support an understanding that the claimant would inherit.
- Context, including the parties’ relationship and communication style, must be considered in determining the clarity of assurances.
- The subject of the assurance—the farm—could fluctuate in extent but was sufficiently identified as the farm as it stood at D’s death.
- Proprietary estoppel operates distinctly from promissory estoppel, functioning independently to create rights in land, even absent a formal contract.
- The context of a familial, non-commercial relationship justified reliance on informal conduct and assurances.

## Legal Principles

- Proprietary estoppel requires assurance, reliance, and detriment; clarity of assurance must be judged in context rather than by demanding explicit statements.
- The doctrine allows claims to arise in the absence of formal legal agreements, particularly in family settings where conduct speaks as loudly as words.
- Proprietary estoppel differs fundamentally from promissory estoppel: it does not require a pre-existing legal relationship and can confer new property rights.
- Identification of subject matter for proprietary estoppel can permit a degree of flexibility; certainty is assessed at the point the estoppel takes effect.
- Courts should recognize and evaluate the nature of the relationship when adjudicating estoppel claims, with a more flexible approach applied to informal or familial relationships.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords affirmed that proprietary estoppel can arise from contextually clear, informal assurances and reliance in familial relationships, even absent a formal contract or a precisely fixed subject matter, confirming the independent and flexible application of the doctrine in land law.

Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18