Wayling v Jones (1995) 69 P. & C.R. 170

Court of Appeal

Basic Facts : The claimant, Wayling, was in a same-sex relationship with his partner, Jones. For years, Wayling worked at Jones’s businesses without receiving a proper salary. Jones had made a will bequeathing a specific hotel to Wayling. This hotel was subsequently sold, and a different hotel was purchased. Jones assured Wayling that he would inherit the new hotel. However, upon Jones's death, the will made no provision for Wayling. Wayling claimed the hotel under the principle of proprietary estoppel. The trial judge rejected the claim, and Wayling appealed the decision.

Issue for the Court : When is estoppel established?

Held: The court found that proprietary estoppel could arise where promises made were relied upon to the claimant's detriment.

Balcombe LJ

• Estoppel requires a link between the promises and the detriment suffered.

• Promises need not be the sole inducement, but must be a significant factor in the conduct leading to detriment.