Wayling v Jones [1993]

Facts

  • The claimant had acted as the defendant’s chauffeur for pocket money, following assurances that he would inherit the defendant’s business
  • The claimant and defendant were also partners
  • Nothing was left to the claimant in the will of the defendant

Issue

  • Was the claimant entitled to the defendant’s business?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • Detrimental reliance should be judged using a ‘but for’ test
  • Contrary to the original judge’s findings, the Court of Appeal found that the claimant would not have acted in the same way in the absence of assurances as to what the claimant would inherit
RELATED CASE  Neilson-Jones v Fedden [1975]

Posted in Land Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 24th April 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy