Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P. & C.R. 196

Court: Court of Appeal

Basic Facts: C allowed D to live in a house rent-free, encouraging D to improve it. After D's wife died and D moved out most of the time, C sought possession due to financial difficulties. D refused, claiming a right to remain after living there rent-free for 18 years.

Issue for the Court: What relief can be granted in cases of proprietary estoppel?

Held: The court held that proprietary estoppel may not provide a remedy where the detriment suffered is minimal compared to the benefit sought.

Roch LJ:

• The remedy in proprietary estoppel should reflect the expectations of the party that was encouraged, balancing these expectations against the detriment and the position of the encouraging party.

• Remedies should be proportionate and just, not exceeding what is necessary to prevent unconscionable conduct.

Hobbhouse LJ:

• In proprietary estoppel, the detriment must be substantial and distinct, and the remedy must align with the detriment avoided.

• The relief granted should not be disproportionate to the expectation and the detriment suffered.