Priestley v Priestley

The matter before the court involved the plaintiff, who had provided services and made payments to the deceased under the belief that he would inherit the deceased’s estate as per the will. The deceased subsequently changed his will without notifying the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to enforce a testamentary contract, arguing that the deceased had promised to leave his estate to him, and that the deceased should be estopped from denying this promise. The court was required to determine whether a testamentary contract existed between the plaintiff and the deceased, whether the deceased’s executrix was estopped from denying the plaintiff’s inheritance, and if the deceased’s estate was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff’s actions.

The court first addressed the issue of the testamentary contract. It concluded that no such contract was established as the deceased had not made any promise to leave his estate to the plaintiff nor to refrain from revoking the will. Additionally, the court found that there was no intention between the parties to enter into a formal contract. The court then considered the claim of proprietary estoppel, finding that while the deceased was aware that the plaintiff expected to inherit the estate and might cease assistance if informed of the changes to the will, it was not unconscionable for the deceased to depart from the assumed state of affairs. The court found that the plaintiff would likely have continued to assist the deceased even if aware of the changes to the will. Consequently, proprietary estoppel was not established. Lastly, the court examined the restitution claim, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable remuneration for the services rendered under a present mistake of fact.

The court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable remuneration for the services provided to the deceased, reflecting the unjust enrichment of the deceased's estate due to the plaintiff's labour and payments. No testamentary contract was found, and the claim of proprietary estoppel was dismissed.