Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107

A couple in Fiji lived together in a house held under a lease subject to statutory restrictions on dealings. The man assured his partner that the house would provide a permanent home for her and their children. She gave up her existing accommodation and moved there in reliance on that assurance. After their relationship ended, he sought possession. She relied on the promise and the change in her position to resist eviction. A difficulty arose because the consent required for certain dealings with the lease had not been obtained, raising the question whether an equitable right would evade the statutory restriction.

Could the assurance support an enforceable right of occupation between the partners despite the absence of statutory consent to a disposition of the lease?

The Privy Council upheld the woman’s right to resist the claim for possession. The assurance of a permanent home, acted upon by giving up her previous accommodation, supported an equitable obligation against the man. The Board distinguished a personal right to occupy from a transfer of an interest in the lease requiring the relevant consent. Relief could operate against the promisor without diminishing the rights of the superior landlord or other persons with independent interests. The conclusion therefore did not validate a prohibited conveyance. It prevented the man from withdrawing the promised accommodation in circumstances in which her reliance made that withdrawal inequitable.

An assurance of a home, followed by a detrimental change of position, may support an equitable licence enforceable against the promisor. Whether that relief offends a statutory restriction depends on the restriction and the rights actually conferred, rather than on the broad label of estoppel.

The case separates the personal enforcement of an assurance from the creation of an estate binding third parties. It also shows that detriment can consist of giving up an existing home, rather than paying for improvements. As a Privy Council decision from Fiji, its reasoning must be considered with its particular statutory setting. It is not authority that estoppel overrides English land formalities or defeats superior property rights whenever a promise has been made.