Thorner v Major

In the case of Thorner v Major, the House of Lords heard an appeal from David Thorner against the decision of the Court of Appeal. David Thorner, a farmer, had worked without pay on his cousin Peter's farm for nearly 30 years. David claimed that Peter had made assurances that David would inherit the farm, and that he had relied on these assurances to his detriment. The central issue was whether David had established a proprietary estoppel claim against Peter's estate. The Court of Appeal had overturned the trial judge's decision in favour of David, finding that Peter's assurances were not clear and unequivocal enough to establish a proprietary estoppel. The House of Lords allowed David's appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were sufficient to support his decision. The Lords found that Peter's assurances, although oblique, were reasonably understood by David as an assurance that he would inherit the farm and that it was reasonable for David to rely on them. The Lords also held that the fact that Peter had not explicitly intended for David to rely on his assurances did not preclude a proprietary estoppel claim. The House of Lords restored the trial judge's order that Peter's personal representatives hold the farm on trust for David.