Land - Licences & Proprietary Estoppel (2)

2. In 1993 old Mrs Rich wrote to her daughter, Diana, inviting her to come and live in Mrs Rich’s large house. “As I am getting old and finding it harder to look after the house”, she wrote, “it would be a great job to have you here. I know that you would have to sell your flat and give up your job, but I would give you a generous allowance. I would also pay all the housekeeping expenses, and I am leaving you the house in my will.” Diana, who was very fond of her mother, accepted the invitation. She sold her flat, gave up her job, and went to live with her mother. The arrangement worked well for seven years. In 2000 Mrs Rich sold the house and moved to a small bungalow which Mrs Rich bought by the sea. In 2001 they quarreled and Diana moved out of the bungalow. Mrs Rich has now died leaving her estate to charity.

Representation
- Leave Diana the house in her will

Detriments
- Sell flat
- Give up job
=> Non-financial detriments
What about benefits?
- Live in a large house
- Generous allowance
- Mrs Rich paying all the housekeeping expenses
=> Benefits outweigh detriments or not?

Reliance
- Presumption of reliance rebuttable: e.g. she did all out of love, not because of the promise

House sold
- Equity can be transferred to another property
- However, here, the house values more than the bungalow, Diana can claim the bungalow AND the difference in value between the two properties

2001 Diana moved out
- Was the promise conditional to Diana taking care of Mrs Rich till she dies?
- If yes, then condition not satisfied, but court may consider the extent of remedy based on this, so that Diana will not get nothing
- Quarrel will be taken into account and affect the extent of remedy: the reason for the quarrel, how bad the quarrel is…

Remedy
- The trend is to give compensation: The maximum that could be made available (based on expectation) and the minimum to do justice to the parties (based on detriments)
- Stress on proportionality and appropriate balance
- All factors are relevant: Representation / Promises (how definite, how reasonable for Diana to rely on, how often is the promise repeated); detriment; reliance; conduct of parties (e.g. who causes the quarrel?); possibility to force the parties to cohabit / clean break (i.e. compensation); parties’ relative financial position; tax impact…

Charity
- Diana’s successful claim will bind charity as charity is a volunteer; it has given no consideration; it is not a purchaser- Volunteer is always bound no matter the claimant’s interests are registered or not