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
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)
