Guest v Guest

In the case of Guest and another (Appellants) v Guest (Respondent), the Supreme Court considered the appropriate remedy for a proprietary estoppel claim. The Appellants, David George Guest and Josephine Guest, appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had awarded the Respondent, Andrew Charles Guest, compensation for the disappointment of his expectation of inheriting part of the family farm. The Appellants argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in law by focusing on compensating for the detriment suffered by Andrew, rather than satisfying his expectation.

The Supreme Court held that the primary purpose of the remedy in proprietary estoppel cases is to address the unconscionability arising from the promisor going back on their promise. While the length of detrimental reliance and the proportionality between the expectation and the detriment are relevant considerations, they do not determine the appropriate remedy. In this case, the Court of Appeal had not erred in law by awarding compensation to Andrew, as it was a just and proportionate remedy in the circumstances.

The Supreme Court also considered the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to Andrew. The Court calculated the financial loss attributable to Andrew being kept out of the money he would have earned in another job and added it to the principal sum to arrive at an estimated total financial loss of £610,000. The Court did not consider it appropriate to add any further amount to reflect non-pecuniary harm, as the financial compensation should go a long way towards alleviating any feelings of dislocation and distress.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirmed the award of compensation to Andrew. The Court emphasized that the primary aim of the remedy in proprietary estoppel cases is to address the unconscionability caused by the promisor going back on their promise, and the appropriate remedy must be proportionate to the circumstances of each case.