Suggitt v Suggitt [2012]

Facts

  • A son lived on his father’s farm almost exclusively, and did odd jobs for no wage
  • The father had promised that the farm would be his
  • The father died, not leaving the farm to his son

Issue

  • Could the father be estopped from not passing the farm to his son?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s assessment that the son was entitled to the whole buy alprazolam online farm, worth several million pounds
  • The son relied on his father’s representations by doing very little with his life
  • This case appears to violate the proportionality principle set out in Jennings v Rice [2002], yet the Court of Appeal attempts to reconcile this issue by reasoning that the award was not out of proportion (as opposed to proportionate)
RELATED CASE  Graham v Philcox [1984]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 25th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy