The Court refused leave to amend a statement of claim to replead a proprietary estoppel claim, holding that while at least one viable promise had been pleaded (the 'Litigation Promise'), the claim as a whole was fatally defective due to multiple pleading failures: representations predating the alleged promise were purely contextual and not material facts; detrimental reliance was improperly pleaded as particulars rather than in the body of the pleading; the plaintiff's estrangement from the promisor from mid-2017 was inconsistent with continued reliance after that date; and the prayers for relief suffered from overuse of declaratory relief and a conflation of interests in companies with interests in company property. The Court confirmed that in proprietary estoppel claims developing over long family relationships, the point at which representations harden into an actionable promise must still be specifically pleaded, and all acts of detrimental reliance must postdate the making of that promise. The door was left open for a further application addressing the identified deficiencies, but the Court signalled it would require very good reasons to reopen the issue given the need to proceed to trial on the remaining family provision claim.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.