In proprietary estoppel, the promisee is prima facie entitled to fulfilment of the expectation generated by the promise. A promisor seeking to reduce the remedy must demonstrate that the expectation is uncertain, extravagant, or out of all proportion to the detriment. A 'ledger' approach comparing the quantified monetary value of detriment against the value of the promised interest is misdirected. Detriment need not be precisely quantified so long as it is substantial. An undertaking given at trial to grant part of the promised interest is not the starting point for the analysis. The question of whether House v The King applies to proportionality assessments in proprietary estoppel remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.