| Jennings v Rice | |
| Court: | Court of Appeal |
| Full Name: | Anthony Clifford Jennings v Arthur T Rice, Janet Wilson, Linda A. Marsh, Peter L Norris, Arthur E Norris & Patricia M Reed |
| Citations: | [2002] EWCA Civ 159 [2002] WTLR 367 [2003] 1 FCR 501 [2003] 1 8 [2003] 1 P & CR 100 |
| Judges: | Aldous LJ Mantell LJ Walker LJ |
| Decision By: | Aldous LJ Walker LJ |
| Concurring: | Mantell LJ |
| Prior Actions: | Appellant awarded £200,000 at first instance in the High Court before HHJ Weeks QC |
| Opinions: | 'There is a clear line of authority from at least Crabb to the present day which establishes that once the elements of proprietary estoppel are established an equity arises. The value of that equity will depend upon all the circumstances including the expectation and the detriment. The task of the court is to do justice. The most essential requirement is that there must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment.' Appeal dismissed 'with costs' (costs decision against the appellant) |
| Transcripts: | EWCA Civ 159 (bailii.org) |
| Keywords: | Proprietary estoppel
|
Jennings v Rice (EWCA Civ 159; 2002) is an English land law case concerning proprietary estoppel.
Mr Jennings, a self-employed bricklayer and part-time gardener, sued the administrator of his former employer, Mr. Arthur Thomas Rice, for a large house and furniture (worth £435,000) on the basis that he had been given an assurance he would get it. In 1970, Jennings began working for Mrs Royle as a gardener at her home at Lawn House in Shapwick, Somerset.[1] As time went by, he began to run errands and carry out minor maintenance about the house. In the late 1980s, Mrs Royle stopped paying Mr. Jennings but provided him with £2,000 towards the purchase of his property. In the early 1990s, Mrs Royle became more dependent on Mr. Jennings as she became incapacitated with arthritis and leg ulcers. After a burglary in 1993, Mr. Jennings was persuaded to sleep overnight and eventually his responsibilities extended to helping her dress and go to the toilet, collecting her prescriptions and making sure she had enough food and drink available. Mr. Jennings also began to sleep in the house every night and continued to care for her until her death in August 1997, aged 93, without a will and without issue. After her death, Mr. Jennings continued to live in the house.
The judge held that in the late 1980s, Mr Jennings had challenged Mrs Royle about her failure to pay him and she assured him that he need not worry. She told him “he would be alright” and although Jennings' did not have a precise recollection of exact words, the thrust of the assurance was to the effect that “this will all be yours one day”. Jennings claimed that either he had: a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; or under a contract regarding land not falling foul of the Acts on formalities; or that he had a right to the house under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The administrator contested all three heads of claim.
The High Court awarded Jennings £200,000 taking into account the payments he had foregone, finding proprietary estoppel. It rejected his dependency claim, and stated that Royle's words had been too vague to make a contract or quasi-contract.[2] The Court of Appeal approved the first instance decision on quantum:
The judge reminded himself that the house was valued at £420,000 and was not a suitable house for [Jennings] to live in on his own and he took into account that [Royle] had no special obligations to her family. He said that to reward an employee on the scale of £420,000 was excessive. He also compared the cost of full-time nursing care, which he estimated at £200,000, with the value of the house. He reasoned that [Jennings] would probably need £150,000 to buy a house. He concluded:"I do not think that he could complain that he had been unfairly treated if he had been left £200,000 in [Royle]'s will. Most people would say that she would, at least, then have performed her promise to see him all right. The quality of her assurance affects not only questions of belief, encouragement, reliance and detriment, but also unconscionability and the extent of the equity.In my judgment the minimum necessary to satisfy the equity in the present case is the sum of £200,000."
Jennings appealed to the Court of Appeal for the full value of the house (under the found proprietary estoppel). Rice for the statutory beneficiaries of the death estate argued including the nieces and nephews argued that instead of the full value of the house - the maximum awardable - the reviewing court should uphold the decision below which took into account the actual detriment experienced.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had made a correct assessment: proportionality was essential between expectation and detriment in deciding how to satisfy an equity based on proprietary estoppel. The detriment to Jennings was more difficult to establish than his expectation, however courts must consider unconscionability. Holding that the appeal should be dismissed, Robert Walker LJ's leading judgment reasoned: