Suggitt v Suggitt 
- 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
- Could the father be estopped from not passing the farm to his son?
- 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 , yet the Court of Appeal attempts to reconcile this issue by reasoning that the award was not out of proportion (as opposed to proportionate)
Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.
This page was last updated on 25th April 2015