ABSTRACT
Proprietary estoppel arises in circumstances in which the defendant has made a repre sentation to the claimant on which the claimant has relied to their detriment. Therefore, the three elements of proving the estoppel are: representation, reliance and detriment. In the decided cases, a representation may involve the making of a specific promise on one particular day or, frequently, it involves the making of a series of representations over time which when taken together create an understanding in the claimant’s mind which it was reasonable for them to have formed. Remarkably, in Thorner v Major, just such an understanding was formed by the claimant from the circumstances even though the parties had never actually discussed the question at issue. Reliance is a question of fact requiring a link between the representation and the actions which the claimant took as a response. The concept of detriment has been treated differently in different cases: spending money is the clearest example of suffering detriment, but in some cases even agreeing to move house with one’s children in reliance on a promise that you will all have a new home if you do so has been held to be detriment. So, there are differences on the authorities as to the meaning of detriment.
