Jennings v Rice

Facts

Mr Jennings, a gardener, sued the administrator of his former employer, Mr Rice, to have a large house worth £435,000 conveyed to him on the ground that he had been given an assurance he would get it. Mrs Royle, who lived at Lawn House, Shapwick, Somerset, died on August 11, 1997 aged 93, without a will or children. Mr Jennings had worked as her gardener since 1970, but from the late 1980s had increasingly begun to care for her, doing washing, helping dressing, shopping and going to the toilet. She was running out of money and could not continue to pay him. She told him he need not worry about that since “he would be alright” and that “this will all be yours one day”. Mr Jennings claimed that either there was a claim under the Inheritance Act 1970, or there was a contract, or that he had a right to the house under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. The administrator contested the payment. The High Court awarded him £200,000 taking into account the payments Mr Jennings had forgone on the basis of proprietary estoppel, after rejecting the IA 1970 claim, and stating that Mrs Royle's words had been too vague to make a contract. Mr Jennings appealed arguing that he should get the full sum even under proprietary estoppel, while Mr Rice argued that although the full value of the house was the maximum awardable, the court should take into account the actual detriment experienced.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had made a correct assessment, and proportionality was essential between expectation and detriment in deciding how to satisfy an equity based on proprietary estoppel. Although the detriment to Mr Jennings was more difficult to establish than his expectation, courts must consider unconscionability. In agreeing that the appeal should be dismissed, Robert Walker LJ said the following.