The long-awaited decision in Guest v Guest has been handed down. Many had hoped it would clarify the somewhat higgledly-piggledly law in this area and provide a user-friendly rubric for practitioners. The question arises: has that been achieved? On one analysis the answer is simple – yes it has.
What was once described by Lord Justice Lewison in Davies v Davies as the ‘lively controversy’ about the essential aim of the exercise when the courts assess remedies in proprietary estoppel cases has now been put to bed. In fact Lord Briggs, who wrote the majority judgment in Guest, perhaps goes even further and denies that the controversy should ever have been thought ‘lively’ in the first place. In essence, the aim of the remedy is, in Lord Briggs’ words, ‘to remedy unconscionability mainly by satisfying expectation’. The main takeaway being that the ‘fulfilment of the promise’ is ‘likely to be the starting point’ in many cases. However, it seems unlikely that proprietary estoppel cases will now become a walk in the park for practitioners, as, though it has been made clear that the remedy is usually to be framed around the granting of the promise, ‘considerations or practicality, justice between parties and fairness to third parties’ may mean that a lesser award is in fact required.
More analysis of the judgment, including where the mantra “minimum equity to do justice” and the idea of proportionality between remedy and detriment have been left are discussed in the recent article written by Adam Boyle, who was also Junior Counsel for the Respondent in the Davies v Davies case. Click here to access the full article, first published by LexisPSL on 7 November 2022.
Adam is an experienced specialist in chancery and real estate. He is a go-to barrister for difficult property cases and has been repeatedly recognised in Chambers UK as a specialist in proprietary estoppel. Read more about Adam here.