Court: House of Lords (United Kingdom) Citation: [2009] UKHL 18 Facts: Thorner v Major centers on a dispute over the inheritance of a farm. David Thorner worked for many years on his cousin Peter’s farm without formal payment, under the understanding that Peter intended to leave him the farm in his will. Though Peter never explicitly stated he would leave the farm to David, he made various gestures and comments over the years that led David to believe he would inherit the property. For instance, Peter gave David an insurance bonus statement, implying that it would be “useful” to him in the future, which David interpreted as an indication of inheritance. Peter subsequently revoked his will in 2005 but did not create a new one, leaving no formal arrangements for the inheritance. Upon Peter’s death, David claimed that he was entitled to the farm through proprietary estoppel. Legal Issues: The main issues in this case were: Proprietary Estoppel: Whether Peter’s actions and conduct towards David created an equitable right through proprietary estoppel, entitling David to the farm. Assurance, Reliance, and Detriment: Whether David had acted to his detriment based on an assurance by Peter that he would inherit the property. Decision: The House of Lords ruled in favor of David Thorner, holding that the requirements of proprietary estoppel were met. The court recognized that Peter’s conduct over many years constituted an assurance to David that he would inherit the farm, which David had relied on to his detriment. Key Legal Principles: The ruling outlined the elements necessary for a successful claim of proprietary estoppel: Assurance: There must be a clear indication, through conduct or statements, that a property interest will be granted. Although Peter’s words were not explicit, the court found that his actions over the years provided David with a clear impression of inheritance. Reliance: The claimant must have relied on the assurance. David had worked on the farm without formal pay, forgoing other employment opportunities based on his belief in Peter’s intentions. Detriment: The claimant must have suffered detriment as a result of reliance. David’s years of unpaid labor and investment in the farm amounted to significant detriment. Significance: Thorner v Major is a landmark case in proprietary estoppel, expanding on what can constitute “assurance” in informal family arrangements where property is involved. The case emphasizes that assurances can be indirect or implied and need not be explicitly stated to form the basis for estoppel, as long as they give rise to a reasonable expectation of inheritance. This case is frequently cited in disputes over informal property arrangements, especially within family contexts, and underscores the principle that equity can intervene to prevent injustice where a party has acted to their detriment based on reasonable expectations.