- Proprietary estoppel—countervailing benefits and counterfactuals (Anaghara v Anaghara)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- The finding re Alice purchasing an alternative property
- The finding re the cost of the renovations
- The relevance of ‘rent-free’ accommodation
- Case details
Property Disputes analysis: There are three main points to take away from this judgement on a family proprietary estoppel claim. Firstly, the ‘rent free’ occupation of a matrimonial home by the claimant wife of the legal owner was not a ‘countervailing benefit’ which it was necessary or appropriate to take into consideration either in determining whether or not an equity had arisen in her favour or in assessing the appropriate remedy in her claim pursuant to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect ‘chapter and verse’ as to a counterfactual where, relying on the promisor’s representations, a promisee foregoes an opportunity (here the acquisition of an alternative property) and suffers detriment thereby. Thirdly, money spent on renovations to the property by her son and daughter-in-law but for the benefit of the claimant wife was capable of constituting a detriment to her for the purposes of establishing her claim in proprietary estoppel. Written by Mark Dubbery, barrister and mediator at Pump Court Chambers, who acted for the first respondent.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial