Henry v Henry [2010] 1 ALL ER 988

C took care of his grandmother for a long time in her home in St Lucia. The grandmother made assurances to C that he would inherit her share in the land when she died. Shortly before her death, C’s grandmother removed him from her will, and C sought to claim that he was still entitled to the half share that she assured to him, on the basis of proprietary estoppel. The trial judge found that he did not suffer any detriment on balance, because he was able to live rent free in his grandmother’s house whilst he cared for her. The Court of Appeal however allowed his appeal. The issue was appealed to the Privy Council (PC).

The PC had to decide whether he was entitled to the half share, and therefore whether there was proprietary estoppel, notwithstanding the benefits accrued to C from living in the property.

The Privy Council recognised the claimant’s equity after assessing the whole relationship. The disadvantages incurred through reliance had to be weighed against advantages such as accommodation and use of the land. The trial approach had not adequately evaluated the nature and duration of the care and other conduct in the context of the assurances. Reliance and detriment, although conceptually distinct, were closely connected in that factual enquiry. Benefits did not automatically cancel the substantial detriment merely because they could be identified. The claimant obtained the relevant half interest on the findings. The result was a contextual assessment, not a mathematical rule for valuing family care.

In proprietary estoppel, detrimental reliance is assessed in the context of the assurance and the whole course of conduct. Countervailing benefits must be considered, but their existence does not automatically cancel substantial non-financial or long-term detriment.

Henry is a Privy Council decision from St Lucia which illustrates the balance of benefits and detriments in a family arrangement. It complements Gillett’s refusal to confine detriment to cash expenditure. Students should distinguish deciding whether an equity exists from selecting its remedy, now informed in English law by Guest. The original missing principle has been restored without implying that free accommodation either necessarily defeats or guarantees the claim.