Greasley v Cooke [1980] 1 WLR 1306
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:06 UTC
Woman contributed to looking after household because of promise that she could live in the house rent-free for life. The court allowed her to do so.
It held that although non-financial contribution cannot confer a proprietary interest, it may constitute detriment for the purposes of estoppel.
Also, once reliance had been proved, the burden was on the other party to show that she had not acted to her detriment.
Per Lord Denning MR
Financial expenditure is not necessary to invoke proprietary estoppel.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Campbell v Griffin
Plaintiff was the lodger of X and Y and eventually ended up being a carer for them too, in return for which they promised that he would have a “home for life”. However only Y made the change to his w...
Re Basham
This was a case where Plaintiff was promised by the deceased that she would inherit his house, but he died intestate and she sought a declaration against the deceased’s administrators of his estate,...
Jennings v Rice
Plaintiff, a gardener, looked after his employer for many years without pay, on the understanding that she would "see him alright" in the end. She in fact left him nothing in her will, and Plaintiff...
Habberfield v Habberfield
Proprietary estoppel arises when one party makes assurances to another, who then reasonably relies on those assurances and suffers a detriment as a result. In this case, the court recognized the clai...
Gillett v Holt
Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from breaking their word when someone else has relied on it to their detriment. Proprietary estoppel deals with promises about property or land rig...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.