← All Authorities
United Kingdom Leading Case proprietary estoppel

Thorner v Major

[2009] UKHL 18
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtUK House of Lords
Year2009
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Proprietary estoppel requires assurance, reliance, and detriment; the assurance need not be express but must be sufficiently clear from conduct in context.

Key Principle

Proprietary estoppel: an assurance need not be express — it can be implied from conduct where sufficiently clear in context. The three elements are assurance, reliance, and detriment.

Area of Law

trusts

Related Cases

Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85

Prenuptial agreements set aside for unconscionability and undue influence where inequality of bargaining power existed between the parties.

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 392

A casino operator's mere knowledge of a patron's pathological gambling does not constitute unconscionable conduct absent deliberate exploitation of that special disadvantage.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Distributors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 90

A supplier's high-pressure door-to-door sales tactics targeting elderly women constituted unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Thorner v Major and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Thorner v Major