判决理由
Proprietary estoppel can arise from indirect assurances. It is sufficient that the claimant reasonably understood the assurances to mean they would inherit property, even if the assurances were oblique rather than express.
事实
David Thorner worked unpaid on his cousin Peter's farm for nearly 30 years in the expectation of inheriting it. Peter made indirect remarks suggesting David would inherit but never made a clear promise. Peter died intestate.
判决摘要
The House of Lords held David had established proprietary estoppel. The assurances, though indirect, were sufficiently clear in context and David had relied on them to his detriment.
关键引述
"What matters is not the precise words used but whether the assurances were reasonably understood as a commitment on which the claimant was entitled to rely."
— Lord Walker
后续处理
Leading modern authority on proprietary estoppel in domestic/agricultural contexts.